The Rise of Yahwism: Role of Marginalised Groups

The rise of Yahwism:
role of marginalised groups
by
MARLENE ELIZABETH MONDRIAAN
submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree
Philosophiae Doctor (Ancient Languages and Cultures)
in the
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
at the
University of Pretoria
SUPERVISOR: PROF GTM PRINSLOO
Pretoria October 2010
© University of Pretoria
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I dedicate this thesis to my husband, Justus van Wyk, who, in love and loyalty, unconditional-
ly supported me all the years of graduate and post-graduate studies. I thank Justus from the
bottom of my heart for his encouragement and interest in my studies through all the years of
research; for all the days and nights he spent in front of the computer to type my – often-
illegible – handwritten notes; for his patience to re-type the text, as and when I decided on
alternative or additional discussions. I also appreciate his invaluable suggestions – where ap-
plicable – particularly concerning alternative words or sentence constructions. Justus, thank
you for never complaining when you had to go without a proper meal.
When I decided more than twenty-two years ago to enrol, inter alia, as a first year Hebrew
student at the Department of Ancient Languages at the University of Pretoria, I never visual-
ised the long association that would follow this decision. The lecturers in this Department,
Professors Henk Potgieter and Phil Botha, the late Professor Wally da Silva, and, in particu-
lar, my mentor and supervisor, Professor Gert Prinsloo, all had an enormous impact on my
life. They instilled in me appreciation and respect for the ancient languages and cultures of
the biblical world – specifically disclosing the wonders of the Hebrew Bible. I shall always
be indebted to these gentlemen for their guidance.
To Professor Prinsloo, my sincerest appreciation for all the hours he devoted to me: first of
all, in the initial phases of deliberations on a possible relevant, but "new" research problem;
also, thank you, Professor Gert, for your guidance and advice and all the discussions after-
wards on a regular basis. I wish to express my deepest gratitude for your motivation, inspir-
ing me when I was feeling down – not seeing the end of the research work – and lifting my
spirits to start anew. You always had time to exchange views on this controversial topic –
researched for my thesis, and already much debated by scholars. These discussions gave me
new insights and specifically an interest in this particular field of biblical scholarship – nota-
bly enriching my life. This research developed from a mini-dissertation for a Masters degree,
concerning the origin of Yahwism.
I sincerely wish to thank Retha Kruidenier, previously from the library of the University of
Pretoria, for her dedication and all the time she spent to assist me in acquiring the necessary
documentation relevant to this research. I appreciate her friendliness, never complaining
when I continuously requested new material.
To all my friends, who often forfeited our regular coffee chats and never stopped supporting
and encouraging me to complete this thesis – thank you for being indeed "friends in need". I
shall always appreciate the interest you took in my research and the outcome thereof. And,
lastly, I wish to thank the ladies – all, who are also friends – in my Bible Study group at our
congregation, who were always concerned, through the many years, with the progress and re-
sults of my studies. Thank you for understanding that it was not always possible to give my
time and energy fully where needed.
Marlene E Mondriaan
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation for research 1
1.2 Research problem 1
1.3 Hypothesis 2
1.4 Purpose of research 5
1.5 Methodology 6
1.6 Abbreviations 18
1.7 Archaeological periods in Palestine BC 21
2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS 22
2.1 Introduction 22
2.2 Radiocarbon dating, palynology and remote sensing 25
2.3 Ebla archives 28
2.4 Mari documents 32
2.5 Amarna Letters and the habiru 35
2.6 Egyptian records 38
2.7 Merenptah's inscriptions and reliefs 41
2.8 Ras Shamra tablets: Ugarit 46
2.9 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud 49
2.10 Khirbet ’el-Qom 51
2.11 Khirbet Beit Lei 52
2.12 Ketef Hinnom 54
2.13 Relevant archaeological artefacts 56
2.14 Cult sites 69
2.14.1 Introduction 69
2.14.2 Tel Arad 72
2.14.3 Tel Beer-sheba 79
2.14.4 Tel Dan 81
2.14.5 Papyri from and a Jewish temple at Elephantine 88
2.14.6 Solomonic Temple: a comparison 92
2.15 Résumé and conclusion 96
3 MYTHOLOGY, ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PANTHEONS

AND THE ISRAELITE RELIGION 104
3.1 Introduction 104
3.2 Asherah / Athirat and synonymous female deities 110
3.2.1 Occurrence in Ancient Near Eastern religions 110
3.2.2 Occurrence in the Masoretic Text and Israelite religion 119
3.2.3 Queen mother and the cult of Asherah 126
3.2.4 Synopsis and conclusion: Asherah and synonymous female deities 129
3.3 Relevant female deities 132
3.4 Queen of Heaven 139
3.5 Storm gods and warrior gods 145
3.6 Astral deities 164
3.7 Canaanite El 173
Excursus 1: Israelite religion and syncretism 176
Excursus 2: Israelite women and religion 179
i
3.8 Divine attributes in the Masoretic Text 183
3.8.1 Summary of attributes ascribed to Yahweh 185
3.8.2 Summary of attributes ascribed to El/Elohim 187
3.8.3 Inference from summaries of attributes; some other characteristics 189
3.9 Influence of myths and legends on the Masoretic Text 196
4 NAME YHWH AND RELATED FORMS 227

4.2 Name YHWH: origin, analysis and interpretation of the designation YHWH 232
4.3 Extra-biblical sources concerning the name YHWH or related forms 251
4.3.2 Ebla 252
4.3.3 Mari 255
4.3.4 Egyptian records 257
4.3.5 YW: deity name from Ugarit 261
4.3.6 Akkadian text from Ugarit 263
4.3.7 Personal names from Alalakh and Amarna 264
4.3.8 Mesha Stele 267
4.3.9 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud 271
4.3.10 Khirbet ’el-Qom 278
4.3.11 Amorite onomastics 280
4.3.12 Yahweh from Hamath 282
4.3.13 Anat-yahu and the Elephantine papyri 284
4.3.14 Résumé, evaluation and conclusion 290
4.4 Phenomenon of theophoric names 300
4.4.2 Theophoric Ya-names 303
5 THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF YAHWISM 307

5.2 Origin and characteristics of the Kenites 312
5.3 Kenite hypothesis 331
5.4 Moses figure and traditions 353
5.5 Evaluation of the Kenite hypothesis 365
5.6 Adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh 371
5.7 Yahweh-El: an ancestral god 379
5.8 Adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh: an evaluation of hypotheses 383
6 RECHABITES AND ANALOGOUS MARGINAL GROUPS 406

6.2 Origin and interrelationships of marginal groups 417
6.2.1 Kenites 417
6.2.2 Rechabites 419
6.2.3 Calebites 428
6.2.4 Kenizzites 431
ii
6.2.5 Jerahmeelites 432
6.2.6 Levites 436
6.2.7 Other related groups 443
6.3 Occurrence in the Masoretic Text 445
6.4 Religion, traditions and role in the Israelite cult 448
6.5 Influence during the Monarchical Period 451
7 ORIGIN OF THE ISRAELITE NATION: SYNOPTIC SURVEY 477

7.2 Phenomenon of interaction among nations 485
7.3 Influence of co-regional Ancient Near Eastern nations 491
7.4 Proto-Israelites, exodus and settlement in Palestine 496
7.5 Masoretic Text narratives 524
7.6 Israelite Monarchy 526
8 ORIGIN OF THE MASORETIC TEXT AND MONOTHEISM:

SYNOPTIC SURVEY 544
8.2 Hypotheses on the Pentateuch 553
8.3 Deuteronomistic historiography 559
8.4 Chronistic historiography 569
8.5 Prophets and prophecy 573
8.6 Documentation of Israel's traditions during the monarchical era 577
8.7 Exilic and post-exilic documentation, redactional adaptations and
finalisation of the Masoretic Text 579
Excursus 3: Scribes 582
8.8 Monotheism 584
8.8.1 Synoptic discussion 584
Excursus 4: Akhenaten monotheism 588
8.8.2 Marginal groups and their influence on the establishment and
maintaining of exilic and post-exilic monotheism 589
8.9 Minimalistic or revisionistic views on the historicity of the Masoretic Text
and an Israelite nation 599
9 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION 613
BIBLIOGRAPHY 632
ABSTRACT 670
OPSOMMING 671
iii
FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Taanach cult stand; front view – excavated in 1968 57
2 Taanach cult stand; side view – excavated in 1968 57
3 Three sides of the Taanach cult stand excavated in 1902 61
4 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud: pithos A, cow suckling her calf, Bes-like figures, lyre
player and inscription 275
5 Diagram of possible genealogical links among marginal groups 476
LIST OF MAPS
1 Occurrence of the name Asherah or related forms 225
2 Manifestations of the Queen of Heaven / planet Venus 226
3 Extra-biblical sources: the name Yahweh or related forms 306
LIST OF TABLES
1 Synopsis of characteristics of, and information on, the Kenites 402
2 Synopsis of the Kenite hypothesis and relevant aspects 404
3 Synopsis of characteristics of marginal southern groups 474
iv
ABSTRACT
My motivation and purpose of this research particularly evolve around the question on the
origin of Yahweh and the development of Yahwism, as well as the role of marginal groups in
the maintaining of a pre-exilic Yahweh-alone monotheism, and the subsequent conversion by
Judahites – who previously practised a syncretistic religion – to a post-exilic Yahweh mono-
theism. In accordance with the Kenite hypothesis, the Yahwist tradition originated in the
South amongst the Midianites and Kenites. A Moses-type figure acquired knowledge about
Yahweh from these tribes who venerated Yahweh before the Israelites did. According to the
Chronicler's genealogy, marginal southern groups were all related. The Kenites and Recha-
bites had the opportunity, due to their nomadic lifestyle and particular trade – as coppersmiths
– to spread their religious beliefs. Although the majority of Israelites practised syncretism,
these marginal groups – particularly the Rechabites – sustained their Yahwistic faith through-
out the Monarchical Period, actively involved in a Yahweh-alone movement. Jeremiah set the
Rechabites – who followed a puritanical lifestyle – as an example for the inhabitants of Jeru-
salem.
My hypothesis is that the Israelite God Yahweh was originally a Midianite/Kenite deity and
that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as the Rechabites, played a significant and
dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yahweh-alone movement, as well as in the es-
tablishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism. My approach to this research was with the
premise that the Yahwist tradition originated in the South whence it spread to Judah and the
North. According to a recurring biblical tradition, Yahweh emanated from the South. Evi-
dence from certain Egyptian documents endorses Yahweh's presence in the South.
It was also my aim to establish the interdependence – or not – of different disciplines relevant
to the Hebrew Bible. In my research it became clear that archaeology and biblical scholarship
– particularly historiography – cannot operate effectively without the acceptance of their mu-
tual dependence.
KEY TERMS
Asherah, Archaeology, Exile/post-exilic, Kenite hypothesis, Kenites, Marginal groups, Mono-
theism, Rechabites, Yahweh-alone movement, Yahwism.
670
OPSOMMING
Hierdie studie behels 'n ondersoek na die herkoms van Jahwe en Jahwisme. Volgens die Ke-
niete hipotese, was die Keniete en Midianiete die groepe wat Jahwe aanbid het, reeds voordat
die Israeliete met Hom kennis gemaak het. Hierdie hipotese verklaar dat Moses kennis opge-
doen het van Jahwe deur die toedoen van sy skoonpa, Jetro, 'n Midianitiese priester. Die roe-
ping van Moses was 'n nuwe openbaring van Jahwe. Die sterkte van die Keniete hipotese lê
in Jahwe se topografiese skakel – volgens Bybelse tekste – met die gebiede in die Suide, dus
die omgewing waar die Keniete en Midianiete gewoon het. 'n Verdere aanduiding van 'n ver-
band tussen Jahwe en die Suide kom voor in Egiptiese dokumente. Hierdie betrokke tekste
verwys na Yahu in die land van die Shasu-Bedoeïene, asook na 'n plek Seïr. Ander Egiptiese
tekste verbind weer die Shasu met Edom – dus weereens die suidelike gebiede van die Kenie-
te.
Die Keniete kon skynbaar hulle herkoms terugplaas na Kain, wie se seuns die leefstyl van die
Keniete verteenwoordig het; hulle was naamlik metaalwerkers, musikante, en nomadiese vee-
boere. Volgens die geslagslys van Juda in Kronieke 1, word die verskillende randgroepe in
die suidelike dele genealogies aan mekaar verbind. Hierdie randgroepe sluit stamme in soos
die Regabiete, Kalebiete, Kenassiete en Jeragmeliete. Meeste van hulle het metallurgie beoe-
fen. Uit die aard van hulle beroep en nomadiese leefstyl het hulle rondbeweeg, en het dus die
geleentheid gehad om hulle kultiese affiliasies – waarskynlik as Jahwe-aanbidders – na ander
gebiede te versprei. Die Regabiete was bekend vir hulle asketiese leefwyse; in Jeremia 35
word spesifiek daarna verwys. Gedurende die tydperk van die monargie in Israel was daar 'n
monoteïstiese Jahwe-alleen beweging in Juda. Hierdie beweging was hoofsaaklik saamgestel
uit randgroepe. Ten spyte van 'n sinkretistiese godsdiensbeoefening in Juda en Israel, het
hierdie beweging standvastig hulle monoteïstiese Jahwisme beoefen. Uit die aard van hulle
beroep as smede is hulle waarskynlik saam met die hoëlui na Babilonië weggevoer. Die
vraag ontstaan hoedat dit moontlik is dat 'n volk wat vir eeue 'n sinkretistiese godsdiens beoe-
en het, in 'n kwessie van enkele jare totaal verander om 'n streng, wettiese Jahwe monoteïsme
na te volg. Volgens my hipotese het die randgroepe van die Jahwe-alleen beweging – by
name die Regabiete – 'n betekenisvolle rol gespeel tydens die ballingskap om die Jode te
oortuig dat 'n Jahwe monoteïsme die antwoord op die katastrofe van die ballingskap is.
Naas die ondersoek na die Keniete, Regabiete en ander groepe, asook die Jahwe-alleen bewe-
ging sluit dié navorsing 'n studie in ten opsigte van relevante argeologiese artefakte en
671
epigrafiese materiaal. Hieruit is bepaal dat verskillende dissiplines rakende bybelse
navorsing, onderling van mekaar afhanklik is en dus nie in isolasie nagevors moet word nie.
'n Ondersoek na die fenomeen dat antieke gode met verwante name in verskillende panteons
gevind word, dui daarop dat dié verskynsel van bepaalde Ya-name – wat oor 'n groot gebied
in epigrafiese materiaal gevind is - moontlik verband kan hou met vroeëre tipe Jahwe-
aanbidding elders as in Israel.
SLEUTELTERME
Argeologie, Ballingskap, Jahwe, Jahwe-alleen beweging, Keniete, Keniete hipotese,
Monoteïsme, Randgroepe, Regabiete, Sinkretisme.
672
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation for research

The past decades numerous debates evolved around the question of the origin of Yahweh and
the Israelite religion of Yahwism. General consensus has been reached amongst a large num-
ber of biblical scholars that the pre-exilic Israelite nation practised a syncretistic-type religion
that included the God Yahweh, while a strict Yahweh-alone monotheism was subsequently
observed in post-exilic times. Zevit 1 indicates that 'the worldview of the YHWH-alone
movement may have become particularly widespread among Israelites', during the sixth and
fifth centuries BC 'under circumstances yet to be determined by historians'. Two hypotheses
debated by scholars the past number of years are proposals that Yahweh has a Midian-
ite/Kenite origin or that he has originated from an Ancient Near Eastern El-figure. No clear-
cut decision has been reached, either to the origin of Yahweh, or to the origin and rise of
Yahwism culminating in post-exilic monotheism.
1.2 Research problem

Current debates amongst biblical scholars accentuate the complexity of the origin of Israel as
a nation, as well as that of their Yahwistic religion. It is clear that archaeology plays an im-
portant role in resolving matters concerning Israel. The Hebrew Bible is not an historical
book. It has no intention as such to relate how Israel originated, but rather why it originated.
There are specific limitations, for various reasons, to glean historical information from the
Hebrew Bible. 2 A number of scholars negate the events described in the Hebrew Bible,
claiming it to be mere fiction originating from, and invented during the Persian and Hellenis-
tic periods.3 No two scholars are in complete agreement with each other.
The religions and gods of the Ancient Near Eastern peoples played a significant role in the
religion of Israel. Attributes of contemporary deities had a notable influence on the crystalli-
sation of the concepts the Israelites and Judeans had of Yahweh in their worship of this God at
certain stages. Migration of groups as well as interaction amongst nations gradually led to the
intermingling of deities. According to archaeological data, deities having names synonymous
1
Zevit 2001:690.
2
Biblical texts have been compiled by scribes and editors at dates predominantly much later than the alleged
events they recount. The narrated history is therefore hardly unbiased (Dever 1997a:20-21).
3
Sixth to first century BC. See § 8.9 on minimalistic views regarding the historicity of the Masoretic Text.
1
with and attributes similar to those of, inter alia, the female Asherah/Athirat and the male
Ba‛al/Hadad, appeared at various localities over a widespread area. It therefore seems that
the same, or similar, gods were worshipped by different peoples. In the light hereof the ques-
tion arises whether particular Ya-related names located at regions in the north, south, east and
west of the Ancient Near East, could be linked to the Yahweh of the Midianites/Kenites and
thus to the Yahweh of the Israelite nation.
Aniconism4 and exclusive monotheism are elusive 'to when and why they emerged in ancient
Israel'. 5 As far as I could ascertain, the question has not been raised, and consequently not
answered, as to how the syncretistic-type religion of the Israelite nation – that had been prac-
tised for many centuries – could, in a number of years, radically change to a Yahweh-alone
monotheistic religion. My research concludes that – regarding the origin of Yahwism – the
Kenites, in particular, as well as other marginal groups, such as the Rechabites, played a sig-
nificant role in the establishment of an Israelite Yahwism, specifically in the incidence of the
radical change from a syncretistic religion to a Yahweh-alone monotheism during the exilic
and post-exilic periods.
1.3 Hypothesis
My hypothesis takes cognisance of the supposition that the peoples of the various nations of
the Ancient Near East, continuously and extensively migrated from one place to another,
wandering as far as from east to west and from north to south in the whole region, 6 thus
spreading religious and other beliefs, influencing one another.
If, as it seems to be, that deities over a vast area of the Ancient Near East, with cognate names
and resembling the Canaanite goddess Asherah/Athirat (or the Canaanite god Ba‛al/Hadad)
were actually the same deity with different, but similar names, the question could be asked
whether there is any substantiation for the argument that deities were limited to a specific na-
tion or area (or city/city-state). Scholars have attested that the various cities or city-states
each had their own patron god and that the different nations had their own national god. It
seems, however, that at least the mother goddess (and in some instances the creation god and
4
The term aniconism refers to 'cults where there is no iconic representation of the deity (anthropomorphic or
theriomorphic) serving as the dominant or central cultic symbol' (Mettinger 1997:220-221). Anthropomorphism
is the representation of God, or gods, in terms of human anatomy and human behaviour (Deist 1990:14).
Theriomorphism is the conception of animals in human terms or, the other way round, depicting man as half-
beast and half-man (Deist 1990:260).
5
Evans 1995:195.
6
Compare the biblical narrative of Abraham (Gn 12-21).
2
storm god) was a global (in the sense of the Ancient Near East) goddess or god, familiar and
accepted in the whole of the Ancient Near East. This leads to and substantiates my hypothe-
sis that some form of Yahwism originated – or was inherited from migrating groups – at vari-
ous localities of the Ancient Near East, such as in the South, in the Syro-Palestinian areas and
even as far east and west as Mesopotamia and Egypt. Thus, over a long period of time, a
semblance of Yahwism could have developed over a vast area.7
I, furthermore, postulate that Yahweh was known and revered by the Midianites and Kenites
from a very early period. A Moses-type figure had acquired knowledge about Yahweh
through the Midianites and Kenites. He introduced Yahweh to a group migrating from Egypt
into Palestine. This group in their turn acquainted the tribes in Judah with Yahweh, and also
introduced Yahweh to those peoples who, over many decades, had infiltrated Canaan or were
inherent in Canaan. Some tribes in Canaan also might have gained knowledge about Yahweh
from travelling metalworkers from the South. During the late second and early first millen-
nium BC, certain tribes grouped together establishing an Israelite nation in a monarchical en-
vironment. To substantiate the historical existence of such a nation, and thus earn credibility
in the eyes of other kingdoms, various oral traditions were collected and a so-called chrono-
logical history of Israel compiled. A powerful exodus tradition authenticated Yahweh as the
national God of this nation. 8 Despite adopting Yahweh as a major god, the Israelites contin-
ued with a syncretistic-type religion previously practised in Canaan.
Related marginal groups – such as the Kenites and Rechabites – acknowledged as nomads and
mainly practising metalwork, emanated from the South. The Rechabites, living in a kind of
symbiosis with the Judeans, eventually merged with them. Their strong Yahweh-tradition –
probably acquired from the southern Kenites – advanced Yahweh worship in Judah. In the
North the Canaanite El initially held the highest authority, but was ousted in the course of
time by the popular Canaanite Ba‛al who tipped the scale in favour of Ba‛al-worship in the
North. Rechabite presence in the North is attested by the incident, in 841 BC, when
7
Compare the incidence of primordial knowledge. Primordial: of, pertaining to, or existing at (or from) the very
beginning; primeval (Little et al 1968:1584). Research indicates that among diverse cultures the same symbols
and mythological themes appear recurrently universally, signifying a collective subconscious mind; this is the
primordial or primitive psyche from where the conscious mind – as a component of the evolution process – de-
veloped (Naudé 1986:755-756).
8
Compare the inscription on the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone. A black basalt stele containing
an inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, in which he recounts his victory over Israel. The inscription is dedicated
to the Moabite god Chemosh. The account of the victory supplements the report in 2 Kings 3:1-27 in the He-
brew Bible by supplying information that the Israelite king was responsible for the conquest of North Moab.
Lines 14-18 of this inscription mention a Yahweh sanctuary in the city of Nebo and the removal of accoutre-
ments from there. The incident is dated ca 840-820 BC (Thompson 1982:787-789).
3
Jehonadab ben Rechab aided Jehu in Northern Israel in a military coup during which all the
members of the House of Omri were killed.9 Jehonadab ben Rechab was a descendant of the
ancestor of the Rechabites and is mentioned as a contemporary of Jehu. Influence of the
Rechabites – as well as the Kenites – that probably brought Yahweh to the North, is percepti-
ble, inter alia, in the book of Hosea. Due to the nomadic lifestyle of the Rechabites and
Kenites, and their particular craft, they moved over a vast area, inevitably spreading their tra-
ditions. The possibility can thus not be ruled out that a Ya-type – or Yahweh – religion else-
where developed due to their influence, as well as that of other marginal groups and their
families, such as the house of Heber, the Kenite. 10
Although acknowledged as the national God of the Israelite nation, 11 Yahweh was not ac-
knowledged as the only god. Different aspects and attributes in the portrayal of Yahweh were
emphasised by the various descendants of the so-called Israelite tribes in their worship. He
was, inter alia, characterised as either a Storm God or Solar God or Warrior God. Thus, each
group envisaged and worshipped Yahweh differently. Manifold features of Ancient Near
Eastern deities were conferred on Yahweh. While Ba‛al and El attributes and traditions were
bestowed on the Israelite God in the North, this was not the case in the South where Yahweh
was more prominent. When Samaria was destroyed and the Northern Kingdom dissolved,
many northerners fled to the South, bringing El and Ba‛al with them. In the course of time,
Yahweh acquired El attributes. In the long run, El became predominantly redundant.
In addition, I advance that during the Monarchical Period the Rechabites as traditionalist con-
servatives, as well as some analogous groups, influenced minority communities into monothe-
istic Yahweh worship. There were, probably, priests and Levites among these groups, while
certain prophets were influenced by the Rechabites' characteristic maintaining of their tradi-
tions. Priestly and other Rechabites, together with some other marginal groups, were part of
the Exile. Yahweh, the national God of Israel, ostensibly dwelled in the Temple on Mount
Zion in Jerusalem. The Exile as well as the destroyed Temple – the indestructible abode of
Yahweh – compelled Judeans to rethink their religious affinities, concluding that the Exile
was a direct result of their idolatry and divergence from the Torah. Marginal groups, such as
the Rechabites, who were unwavering in their monotheistic Yahweh-alone tradition, came
forth as steadfast religious groups propagating Yahweh as the only God. They became the
9
See 2 Kings 10.
10
See discussions of Heber, the Kenite, in § 5.2 and § 5.3.
11
See an earlier footnote in this paragraph on the Mesha Stele.
4
driving force in the strict implementation of the Law. Clans of particular scribes were Kenites
"from Hammath", who are explicitly linked to the Rechabites in 1 Chronicles 2:55. The He-
brew Bible refers only sporadically to marginal groups; this could be ascribed to the vying
among priests for a superior position in the recorded history of the Israelite nation and subse-
quent disavowing of minority groups. In the redaction process of the Masoretic Text – during
the exilic and post-exilic periods – the history of Israel was fully or partially rewritten or ad-
justed, presenting Yahweh as the God of Abraham who promised the land to the descendants
of Abraham. According to the Masoretic Text, the Israelite nation pursued a monotheistic
Yahweh religion right from the beginning of their history. References in the text to the popu-
lar religion embracing Yahweh as well as other gods were minimised. Yahweh eventually
emerged as the one and only God in whom all the attributes of the other gods culminated. He
was presented with aspects of El, and was at the same time Creator, Storm, Solar and Warrior
God.
Therefore, my hypothesis for this research is as follows: that the Israelite God Yahweh was
originally a Midianite/Kenite deity and that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as
the Rechabites, played a significant and dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yah-
weh-alone movement, as well as in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism.
1.4 Purpose of research

Many aspects relating to Iron Age Israel are presently being scrutinised by biblical and other
scholars.12 The purpose of my research is not merely to repeat that which scholars have de-
bated for many decades, but to approach the problem of Israelite Yahwism with a different
premise in mind – defined in my hypothesis – and thereby contribute to biblical research. A
large number of biblical scholars accept the concept of a pre-exilic Israelite nation practising a
syncretistic-type religion. At the same time these scholars acknowledge it as indisputable
that, during the Exile, the then Jews conformed to a Yahwistic monotheism compelling strict
law-abiding. I mentioned earlier 13 that, as far as I could ascertain, the question has not been
resolved how this syncretistic-type religion, practised for many centuries by the Israelites,
could – in a number of years – radically change to a Yahweh-alone monotheistic religion. My
purpose for this research is to investigate this disparity and come up with a plausible answer.
12
Mazar 2001:8.
13
See § 1.2, last paragraph.
5
In this particular field of research innumerable publications have seen the light on more or
less every facet of the different disciplines relating to biblical studies. Scholars normally con-
centrate on a specific feature for their research. In this thesis I discuss various relevant disci-
plines and endeavour to point out their relation to one another. Developments in both biblical
– mainly regarding historiography and the advancement of the Israelite religion – and ar-
chaeological research are evaluated. It is therefore also my purpose to indicate that the differ-
ent applicable fields of scholarship are mutually dependent on each other. In the light thereof,
the length of this thesis consequently exceeds that which is normally acceptable for a doctor-
ate.
1.5 Methodology
In the partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Masters degree in Ancient Languages and
Cultures, I had to complete a mini-dissertation. 14 This study was done mainly on the origin of
Yahweh and Yahwism, specifically evaluating certain relevant hypotheses. The present re-
search ensued from the previous study. It is, therefore, inevitable that some of the foregoing
subject matter be dealt with in this thesis. It is, however, employed only contextually where
applicable, and not verbatim.
Much has been written since the end of the nineteenth century on matters concerning the an-
cient Israelites and their religion(s). 15 This study is an attempt to contribute to an already
much analysed and researched subject matter, without repeating groundlessly what scholars in
this field have debated continuously. In the light of the extent and volume of literature on
matters related to the origin and development of Yahwism – which are also directly or indi-
rectly concerned with the Israelite nation and its emergence – the contents of some chapters
herein is dealt with only cursorily. It is, however, essential that all relevant aspects at least be
referred to, particularly regarding research done by notable scholars. The focal point of this
thesis is to investigate the origin of Yahweh and development of Yahwism, and also to deter-
mine the role of marginal groups – such as the Kenites and the Rechabites – in the establish-
ment of a Yahweh-alone movement, culminating in an exilic/post-exilic monotheism. The
inclusion of the various chapters is motivated hereafter.
14
The mini-dissertation, entitled Jahwe en die herkoms van Jahwisme. 'n Kritiese evaluering van teorieë oor die
herkoms van Jahwisme, was completed during 2002 (Mondriaan 2002).
15
In the light of Israel's syncretistic religious practices, Zevit (2001:349) refers to the "religions" of the Israelites.
See also the reference in § 2.15 and the relevant footnote.
6
Literature on current research is deliberated, as well as publications that appeared during the
initial stages of the exploration of biblical historiography and religion. I acknowledge pioneer
work done by early scholars on the history of religions of the Ancient Near Eastern peoples,
and more specifically, that of the Israelites. Utilisation of information from encyclopedias
and dictionaries is mainly for the purpose of concise explanations in footnotes. Terminology
is elucidated in footnotes as and when it occurs in a passage. For practical reasons, footnotes
are numbered separately in each chapter. Cross-referencing is employed where applicable.
The following method is being observed throughout the thesis regarding quotation marks: a
full sentence, or part thereof, in single quotation marks indicates a quotation from a literary
source; double quotation marks indicate a particular descriptive word or phrase within a spe-
cific context. Unless indicated otherwise, all biblical text references or quotations are from
the English Standard Version; some verse numbers therein differ from other translations, as
well as from the Masoretic Text. Three types of data, namely literature analysis, archaeologi-
cal finds and textual information, were mainly employed for this research.
The reader of this thesis should, throughout, bear in mind that my approach to the various
subjects in each chapter is with the premise that the Yahwist tradition originated in the South,
whence it spread to Judah and to the North. The movement of Kenites, Rechabites and analo-
gous marginal groups, as well as a Mosaic group that advanced from Sinai (and probably
from Egypt) was instrumental in, and served as vehicle for, this transmission of Yahwism. I
furthermore presuppose that, although the majority of Israelites practised syncretism, margin-
alised people sustained their Yahwistic faith throughout the Monarchical Period, eventually
actively participating in the final compilation and redaction of the Masoretic Text during the
exilic and post-exilic periods. To validate the image of an Israelite religion professing a
unique monotheistic Yahwistic faith throughout their history, prevailing traditions were em-
ployed and modified by redactors in assembling the text. In the final analysis, the main con-
cern is the message communicated by the Hebrew Bible and not the time – pre- or post-exilic
– of compilation or finalisation thereof. I wish to emphasise that my research is an historical
(hence not theological) approach concerned with the initiation and development of the Yah-
wistic religion of the Israelite people, and not to research or question the existence of Yahweh.
Literature analysis
Literature ranging from the early stages of the formulation of a theory up to the most recent
debates concerning particular matters or hypotheses has been taken into consideration. As an
7
example, the Kenite hypothesis, which was initially formulated by Budde 16 as early as the late
nineteenth century, is evaluated, as are some of the many, much later, debates evolving
around this theory and other theories regarding the origin of Yahwism. To be acquainted with
the different viewpoints of and theories by biblical scholars, each chapter is researched in the
same manner.
Archaeological finds
During the twentieth century archaeological excavations became a major science, recovering
literally thousands of items of material matter related to the Ancient Near East. Archaeology
contributed extensively to the knowledge of biblical history and culture, without which one
cannot understand the Hebrew Bible. The excavation of a multitude of Ancient Near Eastern
texts and the subsequent recovery of these ancient languages made an enormous impact on
biblical research and debates. According to Dever,17 'archaeological data are already more
extensive than all the biblical texts put together'. Dever18 criticises biblical scholars for ne-
glecting to make use of archaeological data as a powerful tool to illuminate the Israelite cult.
It seems that biblical scholars either analyse texts, or research archaeological data, without
linking the two disciplines. In my research I apply relevant archaeological data as support to
any theoretical conclusions.
Textual information
In the final analysis the prime source for biblical research is the Masoretic Text. Relevant
textual material has been taken into account, particularly concerning the portrayal of Yahweh
in geographical context.19 Information from extra-biblical sources applicable to the name
hwhy, or related forms, as well as that on relevant Ancient Near Eastern mythologies and dei-
ties, is deliberated. References to the Kenites, Rechabites and other relevant marginal groups
in the Masoretic Text are appraised, particularly in the light of my hypothesis regarding the
role of these peoples in the development of Yahwism. The extent of this research and its par-
ticular emphasis – as signified in my hypothesis – does not warrant an in-depth study of origi-
nal textual matter, nonetheless, in some instances, texts have been consulted in the original
ancient language. In other occurrences, the translation of relevant ancient texts by a scholar
equipped for the task has been accepted.
16
Budde 1899:17-25, 35-38, 52-60.
17
Dever 2005:74.
18
Dever 2005:76.
19
For example, Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; Habakkuk 3:3.
8
For the elucidation of particular components in this thesis, figures, maps and tables are in-
cluded. For practical purposes the maps and tables are incorporated at the end of the relevant
chapters. Following pages i-iii of the contents, the applicable figures, maps and tables and
their corresponding page numbers are listed on page iv.
I herewith acknowledge that copies of sketches from articles by Hestrin 20 and Beck,21 as well
as from a book by Scheffler 22 are included in my paragraphs 2.13 and 4.3.9. These sketches
are available in the public domain at:
www.matrifocus.com/IMB04/spotlight.htm
www.biblelandpictures.com/gallery/gallery.asp?categoryid=60
www.bibleorigins.net/KuntilletAjrudYahwehAsherah.html
respectively.
Grammar and hyphenation have been verified by the Microsoft Word 2007 programme, lan-
guage set as United Kingdom English, as well as the Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of
current English, seventh edition, 2005.23 When writing the word "Tell" or "Tel" (mound of
various ancient occupation levels), the spelling generally applied by scholars regarding a spe-
cific site, is employed in this thesis when discussing or referring to the site in question.
I am fully aware of the fact that the spelling and transcriptions of the various Semitic words
and names in this thesis are inconsistent. Different transcription systems are applied by
scholars, and this complicates the execution of a consistent method of reference regarding re-
search done by scholars. Accepted anglicised names and words are employed where possible.
Spelling and transcription systems implemented by relevant scholars are repeated verbatim in
quotations. I do not endeavour to systematise the different transcription systems. Divine
names – including the name Yahweh, but excluding the Tetragrammaton, YHWH – are writ-
ten in italics. The Tetragrammaton is applied mainly in Chapter 4 in the discussion of the ori-
gin, analysis and interpretation of the designation YHWH.
20
Hestrin, R 1987. The cult stand from Ta‛anach and its religious background, in Lipińsky, E (ed), Studia
Phoenicia. V. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the first millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Confer-
ence held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th November 1985, 61-77. Leuven: Peeters. (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 22.)
21
Beck, P 1994. The cult-stands from Taanach: aspects of iconographic tradition of Early Iron Age cult objects
in Palestine, in Finkelstein, I & Na’aman, N (eds), From nomadism to monarchy: archaeological and historical
aspects of early Israel. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society.
22
Scheffler, E 2000. Fascinating discoveries from the biblical world. Pretoria: Biblia.
23
Wehmeier, S (ed) 2005. See bibliography for more information.
9
Due to the extent of subject matter included in this thesis, the overlapping of information in
different paragraphs is unavoidable. In certain instances reference has to be made to specific
data in more than one paragraph to elucidate the subject under discussion, and for the sake of
completeness.
Motivation for the inclusion of the different chapters is as follows.
Chapter 2
Archaeological finds
The question may be raised by the reader why a substantial number of pages of this thesis
have been apportioned to this chapter. My research is primarily concerned with the following
issues: where the Israelite God came from, who brought him into the Israelite religion, what
his position was in this religion and how it happened that he later became a major force in the
Jewish religion. Inherent in these matters is the question of the establishment of an Israelite
nation, syncretism in the Israelite religion, the influence of minor – probably related – groups
on the development of Yahwism, as well as the influence of neighbouring nations on the re-
ligion, traditions and culture of an Israelite people.
Archaeological data are regarded as of paramount importance in my endeavour to research the

above-mentioned matters. Present-day biblical research has to take cognisance of the irrefu-
table value of archaeology, without which one cannot do a comprehensive research into bibli-
cal history. The Masoretic Text, as literary source, is inconsistent and biased regarding the
history and religion of the Israelite people. In this vast field – of archaeology – only a few
relevant finds are touched on. It is important that the contents of this chapter be readable mat-
ter, also accessible to the layman. Therefore, I deem it necessary to give sufficient back-
ground information and refer to some of the most important – many still ongoing – debates in
such manner that, albeit brief, the discussion could be meaningful for the reader not ac-
quainted with the specific discovery. However, due to the large extent of literature available
on all excavated matter, it is in reality only barely possible to scratch the surface. On the
other hand, if the information is too sparse, the reader will not be able to see the relevance of
the excavated find (or site) within the broader framework of this research. The finds and sites
discussed should give an indication of the complexity regarding the whole subject of the relig-
ion and historicity of the Israelite nation.
10
This chapter – as first chapter of the research material – is an introduction to aspects discussed
and evaluated to substantiate my hypothesis. The relevance of each find, or site, is indicated
in the conclusion of this chapter.
Chapter 3
Mythology, Ancient Near Eastern pantheons and the Israelite religion
Since the discovery of innumerable extra-biblical texts, consensus has been reached amongst
biblical scholars that the mythologies and legends24 of the different Ancient Near Eastern
peoples had a great influence on the mythologies and legends as recorded in the Hebrew Bi-
ble. It is moreover acknowledged that the pre-exilic Israelite nation practised a syncretistic-
type religion involving, inter alia, particularly some Canaanite deities and rituals.
In the Masoretic Text the Israelite God is referred to by the epithets "Yahweh" or "Elohim".
Throughout the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh is portrayed with various attributes such as Storm
God, Solar God, Warrior God, Mountain God, Creator and Guardian. These different attrib-
utes were associated with particular Ancient Near Eastern deities. El was the creator and su-
preme god of the Canaanite pantheon. In most instances important deities had female con-
sorts. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, specifically during the Monarchical Period, reference is
made to idolatry and in particular to Ba‛al worship. The Israelites were also reprimanded for
veneration of Asherah and Astarte as well as of the Queen of Heaven. Inscriptions found at
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom raised the question amongst scholars whether Yahweh
had a consort.
As stated in my hypothesis, I take cognisance of the supposition that the peoples of the vari-
ous nations of the Ancient Near East, continuously and extensively migrated from one place
to another, thus spreading religious and other beliefs, influencing one another. It has been
attested that deities with cognate names and similar attributes were worshipped over a large
area of the Ancient Near East. My thesis is that, in the instance of Ya-related names discov-
ered over a wide region of the Ancient Near East – as indicated in chapter 4 – the incidence of
a Ya- or Yahwistic-type religion being practised before veneration of Yahweh by the Israel-
ites, need not be excluded. Therefore I should be familiar with the occurrence of a deity, or
deities, with analogous names worshipped in different regions, thereby establishing whether
24
A legend is a story of bygone years, handed down for generations, recounting the wonderful deeds of some
acclaimed (legendary) person to portray him as someone worthy of imitation (Deist 1990:141); also, a traditional
story or myth about a famous person or event (Hanks 1992:278).
11
this tendency was a regular phenomenon and, thus, substantiate my theory that a Yahwistic-
related religion could have been practised elsewhere than only in Israel. I should, likewise, be
acquainted with the various attributes – of these gods – which were eventually ascribed to
Yahweh, as indicated in the Hebrew Bible. The question of a consort for Yahweh has been a
contentious matter debated during the past decades; I should thus be knowledgeable about the
propensity to designate consorts to major deities.
In the course of the discussion of the contents of this chapter it becomes clear – as mentioned
earlier – that the Israelite nation practised syncretism, together with their veneration of Yah-
weh as their national God. Additional information on this religious practice of the Israelites –
which has not been incorporated into the main body of this chapter – is discussed briefly in
two excursuses at the end of paragraph 3.7.
It should, thus, be clear that the inclusion of this particular chapter is essential for the substan-
tiation of my hypothesis.
Chapter 4
Name YHWH and related forms
The main focus of this thesis is to research the origin of the Israelite God Yahweh, as well as
that of the Israelite religion of Yahwism and its subsequent culmination in post-exilic mono-
theism. As indicated in my hypothesis I postulate that a god Ya – or a god with a cognate
name(s) – was venerated in different widespread regions of the Ancient Near East. To cor-
roborate my premise it is, therefore, necessary to discuss and evaluate, first of all, various hy-
potheses of scholars regarding the origin of the name YHWH, as well as different analyses
done in an attempt to interpret the name YHWH. The enigma of the name YHWH has not
been resolved as yet and no consensus has been reached amongst scholars.
A number of extra-biblical sources concerning this name, or analogous forms, are briefly dis-
cussed. According to these sources, the name Yahweh, or related forms, appeared before, dur-
ing and after the Israelite Monarchical Period. In compliance with the Hebrew Bible, Moses
was the first person to whom the God Yahweh revealed his name. It seems, however, consis-
tent with extra-biblical material, that a god Ya – or even a deity Yahweh – was venerated
elsewhere before Yahweh was worshipped by the Israelite people. Two Egyptian thirteenth to
twelfth century BC texts mentioning 'Yhw in the land of the Shasu', are some of the most
12
important discoveries concerning the origin of Yahwism. Additional Egyptian data identify
the nomadic Shasu with the tribes of Edom, as well as with the "land of Seir". It thus seems
that the regions of Edom and Seir were peopled by Shasu. The significance of these texts
with regard to my hypothesis on the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism is deliberated. I theorise
that Yahwism originated amongst the Kenite and Midianite tribes, who were nomadic groups
predominantly in the regions probably peopled by Shasu. The Shasu might have been com-
posed of groups such as the Kenites and related tribes. Being nomads, these groups possibly
contributed to the development of a form of Yahwism in various regions. I should, therefore,
take cognisance of possible extra-biblical referrals to forms related to Yahweh.
Chapter 5
Theories regarding the origin of Yahwism
Two main hypotheses regarding the origin of Yahwism have been debated the past number of
decades, namely the Kenite hypothesis and the adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh. These
two hypotheses are discussed and evaluated. In the light of my research I conclude that Yah-
wism – and thus worship of the god Yahweh – originated amongst the Kenites and Midianites,
who introduced Yahweh to Moses.
A prerequisite in the discussion of the Kenite hypothesis is to attempt to reconstruct the origin
of the Kenites and their possible link to Yahweh and Yahwism. In this regard a potential con-
nection between Cain and the Kenites is explored. Some scholars have identified the Cain
narrative of Genesis 4 as the aetiological legend of the Kenites, and Cain thus as the epony-
mous ancestor of the Kenites. The name Cain is associated with Kenite, meaning "tinsmith"
or "craftsman" in cognate Semitic languages. The Kenites were a nomadic tribe of copper-
smiths dwelling primarily in the South, the region – according to biblical references – from
where Yahweh emanated. The genealogy of Cain is important therein that three of Cain's de-
scendants represent lifestyles linked to the Kenites, namely being tent dwellers with livestock,
musicians and metal craftsmen. Due to their nomadic lifestyle and particular craft the Kenites
travelled from the south to the north, thus having the potential to spread the cult of Yahwism.
If – as it seems to be – a form of Yahwism was practised in the regions of Edom and Seir, it is
inevitable that the Kenites – who dwelled mainly in the same territories – would have become
familiar with this cult.
13
Moses, who sojourned a length of time among the Kenites and Midianites, would thus have
been introduced to the cult of Yahweh. It is therefore also necessary to deliberate the Moses-
figure – who plays a prominent role in the Masoretic Text – and related traditions. In the lat-
ter instance, Moses and such traditions are reviewed only briefly. His association with the
Kenites is highlighted.
The adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh is discussed. Proponents of this hypothesis contend
that Yahweh originated from El. Apart from being a generic term for the word "god", the
name Il, Ilu or El, was also the name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon. According to the
patriarchal traditions in the Pentateuch, it seems that the name of the patriarch was linked to
that of the deity venerated by his family. This god was thus the guardian of the particular
tribe. In the pre-Yahwistic patriarchal cult, El was worshipped by names such as El Shadday.
In the early Israelite religion a combination of the names El and Yahweh was used, or
El/Elohim was an alternative for Yahweh. During the First Temple Period the name Yahweh
replaced El. Cross25 is of the opinion that Yahweh was originally a cultic name for El. Exo-
dus 6:3 differentiates between the designation of the deity of the patriarchs – God Almighty,
ydX la – and that revealed to Moses – hwhy.
According to De Moor,26 an ancestor of one of the Proto-Israelite tribes received the divine
name Yahwi-Ilu after his death, indicating that he was, at that stage, united with the Canaanite
Ilu. The designation Yahweh, therefore, could have been derived from Yahwi-Ilu. The early
Israelites replaced their image of El with Yahweh-El, their own ancestral manifestation of El.
The above theories, concerning Yahweh and El/Elohim, are deliberated and evaluated in this
chapter.
Chapter 6
Rechabites and analogous marginal groups
As advanced in my hypothesis, I deduce that marginal groups, such as the Kenites, Rechabites
and analogous marginal tribes or clans emerging mainly from the "South", were responsible
for the furtherance of Yahweh-worship in Judah as well as in the northern regions of Palestine.
As indicated in the discussion of the Kenite hypothesis in the previous chapter, these peoples
were knowledgeable about Yahweh and worshipped him maybe centuries before Moses. By
25
Cross 1962:225-259.
26
De Moor 1997:368-376.
14
their typical nomadic lifestyle they were exposed to a lesser degree to syncretistic religious
practices and to the "evil and corruption" experienced as a result of urbanisation. Even at a
later stage, when they eventually merged with the Judeans, they sustained a strict Yahweh-
alone religion.
According to genealogical lists in the Hebrew Bible – particularly in Chronicles – as well as

sporadic references to the Kenites, Rechabites, Calebites, Kenizzites, Jerahmeelites and oth-
ers, these groups were evidently linked by common ancestry. The origin of these groups,
their interrelationships and their incidence in the Ancient Near East are analysed despite the
sparse information in the Masoretic Text. It is clear that some Levites – and even priests and
prophets – aligned with the Yahweh-alone movement, notwithstanding being a minority
group. The influence of the Rechabites during the Monarchical Period was evident as de-
scribed in Jeremiah 35. It seems that the prophet Hosea was also sympathetic towards this
movement.
As proposed in my hypothesis, I advance that marginal groups, such as the Rechabites, came
forth as a steadfast religious movement during the Exile, propagating a monotheistic belief in
Yahweh as only God. Their sober conservatism played a decisive role in the dramatic turn-
about of a mainly syncretistic Israelite cult to a monotheistic law-abiding religion.
This chapter, as well as chapters 4 and 5, is essential for the substantiation of my hypothesis
and forms the focal point of my research.
Chapter 7
Origin of the Israelite nation: synoptic survey
Debates in respect of the origin and establishment of an Israelite nation have been ongoing for
many decades. Consensus has not been reached by scholars in this regard. Although this as-
pect is not the main concern of my research, I nevertheless have to take cognisance of the
various proposed hypotheses. Traditions relating to the Israelites predominantly refer to
Yahweh's involvement with this nation, implying a monotheistic belief in and veneration of
Yahweh from the beginning of their history. However, archaeological finds and polemics in
the Hebrew Bible point to the contrary. The Israelite history as portrayed in the Masoretic
Text is an idealistic and biased representation.
15
General consensus has been reached by scholars that, although Yahweh was a major god in
monarchical Israel, the Israelites practised a syncretistic religion. The phenomenon of inter-
action between nations, emergence and settlement patterns of tribes of the later Israelite na-
tion in Canaan, as well as the influence of co-regional Ancient Near Eastern nations, had a
significant effect on the development of the religion of these Israelites.
To establish the possible incidence of minority groups transmitting the concept of Yahweh-
worship among the various "Israelite" tribes, I should be acquainted with the proposed possi-
ble origin and general settlement picture of these tribes. This matter is, however, dealt with
only briefly in this chapter. The settlement of Israelite tribes and the subsequent formation of
an Israelite nation is a complex issue that has filled many pages of research by scholars. My
main concern in this regard is to establish a link between minority migrating groups – who
may have spread the idea of Yahweh-worship – and tribes who later formed part of an Israelite
nation, and not, as such, the settlement patterns of these tribes. Taking available textual data
into consideration, I conclude that minority migrating groups – such as the Kenites and
Rechabites, practising their metallurgy profession – were well placed to acquaint the Israelites
with Yahweh.
Chapter 8
Origin of the Masoretic Text and monotheism: synoptic survey
Supplementary to archaeological finds, the Masoretic Text could be regarded as the only other
source of information on the history and religion of the Israelites. Scholars generally agree
that the main corpus of the Masoretic Text was finalised – or either compiled and finalised –
during the exilic and post-exilic periods. Unfortunately the history of the Israelites has been
recorded rather biased, and therefore the Masoretic Text cannot be utilised as a source to es-
tablish the historicity of the Israelite nation and its religious practices.
As in the instance of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, each one of the other
sections and books of the Masoretic Text warrants research in its own right and is, therefore –
where applicable – being dealt with only briefly. Since the eighteenth century much has been
written and debated on the origin of the Masoretic Text – particularly on the Pentateuch. In
the light of the biased representation of the Israelite history and religion, and the seemingly
explicit involvement of the Kenites and Rechabites – as signified in 1 Chronicles 2:55 – I re-
gard it necessary to be familiar with current hypotheses on the compilation and finalisation of
16
the Masoretic Text. Relevant hypotheses and debates are, however, referred to only cursorily
in this chapter. An excursus briefly elucidates scribes.
According to 1 Chronicles 2:55

'The clans also of the scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites and
the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the
house of Rechab',
the Kenites, linked to the Rechabites, are distinctly named as scribes. It thus seems that these
two minority groups, particularly, were involved – as scribes – in the compilation and com-
pletion of the Masoretic Text. This specific biblical reference substantiates my theory that
marginal groups were concerned with exilic and post-exilic activities, and – in agreement with
my hypothesis – played a dominant role in the establishment of an exilic and post-exilic Yah-
weh-alone religious movement. Their conceivable influence in this regard is analysed.
The concept of monotheism thus forms an integral part of the exilic and post-exilic religious
totality; the perception thereof obviously influenced the finalisation of the Masoretic Text. It
is therefore important that I am familiar with this alternative to syncretism. However, the ex-
tent of debates and available literature on the issue of monotheism cannot be dealt with in this
thesis. I do, nonetheless, briefly refer to aspects of monotheism applicable to my research.
In an excursus at the end of paragraph 8.8.1 the so-called Akhenaten monotheism is dealt with
cursorily.
In recent years a number of scholars – known as the minimalists or revisionists – came for-
ward with their views on the historicity of the Masoretic Text and an Israelite nation. In most
instances they negate the existence of an Israelite nation and Israelite Monarchy, claiming
characters, such as Saul, David and Solomon, to be figments of the imagination. They pro-
pose that the Masoretic Text was a fabrication of the Persian and Hellenistic periods. In some
instances their views merit consideration, although, generally speaking, I cannot agree with
their stance. Certain circles strongly support their views. In the light thereof and considering
their aggressive proposals on the historicity of the Israelite nation and Masoretic Text, I deem
it necessary to be familiar with their views and evaluate those where applicable. These views
need not have any effect on my research and conclusive hypothesis, and therefore are referred
to only briefly.
17
Chapter 9
Synthesis and conclusion
At the end of each chapter a comprehensive résumé and conclusion – in respect of the particu-
lar chapter – are included. Therefore, the final chapter of this thesis reflects mainly on that
which I endeavoured to achieve – as set out in Chapter 1 – and estimates the degree of ac-
complishment thereof. The relevance of each chapter with regard to my hypothesis is briefly
discussed, following which I deduce that the research done – applicable to each chapter in this
thesis – was essential to achieve the results that substantiate my hypothesis. A synthesis is
compiled from all the research material, concluding: that the Israelite God Yahweh was
originally a Midianite/Kenite deity and that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as
the Rechabites, played a significant and dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yah-
weh-alone movement, as well as in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism.
Each one of the chapters 2-8 is concluded with a comprehensive résumé regarding the discus-
sions pertaining to the particular chapter; all relevant material is summarised therein. For an
overview of the contents of this thesis the reader is recommended to consult the résumés at
the end of each applicable chapter.
In conclusion I stipulate shortcomings in my research, with suggestions for further investiga-

tion concerning particular facets of this research problem.
1.6 Abbreviations
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AD Anno Domini
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
ANET³ Pritchard, J B (ed) 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Tes-
tament, 3rd ed with suppl
ASOR.SBL American Schools of Oriental Research. Society of Biblical Literature
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BC Before Christ
Bib Biblica
BS Bibliotheca Sacra
18
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBR Currents in Biblical Research
CNEB Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible
CR:BS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies
CTA Herdner, A. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à
Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929-1939
ESV English Standard Version
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HThR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JThS Journal of Theological Studies
KAI Donner, H & Röllig, W. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften
KTU Dietrich, M, Lorentz, O & Sanmartini, J (eds) 1995. The Cuneiform Alpha-
betic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and other places
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology
NTS New Testament Studies
OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
OTE Old Testament Essays (Journal of the Old Testament Society of South Africa)
OTL Old Testament Library
19
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën
PDK Weidner, E F. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die Staatsverträge
akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
R &T Religion & Theology
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBL.MS Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
UF Ugarit-Forschungen: Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syrien-
Palästinas
VT Vetus Testamentum
VT Supp Vetus Testamentum. Supplements
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
Hebrew Bible books27

Gn Genesis 2 Chr 2 Chronicles Dn Daniel
Ex Exodus Ezr Ezra Hs Hosea
Lv Leviticus Neh Nehemiah Jl Joel
Nm Numbers Es Esther Am Amos
Dt Deuteronomy Job Job Ob Obadiah
Jos Joshua Ps Psalms Jnh Jonah
Jdg Judges Pr Proverbs Mi Micah
Ruth Ruth Ec Ecclestiastes Nah Nahum
1 Sm 1 Samuel Can Canticles28 Hab Habakkuk
2 Sm 2 Samuel Is Isaiah Zph Zephaniah
1 Ki 1 Kings Jr Jeremiah Hg Haggai
2 Ki 2 Kings Lm Lamentations Zch Zechariah
1 Chr 1 Chronicles Ezk Ezekiel Ml Malachi
27
Abbreviations according to Kilian, J 1985. Form and style in theological texts: a guide for use of the Harvard
reference system. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
28
Song of Solomon.
20
1.7 Archaeological periods in Palestine BC29
Neolithic (New Stone Age) 8500-4500
Chalcolithic (Copper Age) 4500-3500
Early Bronze Age
Early Bronze IA 3500-3300
Early Bronze IB 3300-3050
Early Bronze II 3050-2700
Early Bronze III 2700-2350
Intermediate Bronze Age 2350-2000
Middle Bronze Age
Middle Bronze IIA 2000-1800
Middle Bronze IIB 1800-1550
Late Bronze Age
Late Bronze I 1550-1400
Late Bronze IIA 1400-1300
Late Bronze IIB 1300-1200
Iron Age
Iron Age IA 1200-1150
Iron Age IB 1150-1000
Iron Age IIA 1000-900
Iron Age IIB 900-700
Iron Age IIC 700-586
Babylonian/Persian Period 586-332
Early Hellenistic 332-167
Late Hellenistic 167-37
Early Roman 37-AD135
29
Negev & Gibson 2001:556.
21
CHAPTER 2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS
2.1 Introduction
Archaeology is 'the study of the material remains of man's past'. 1 This includes all tangible
manmade matter, such as texts written in ancient languages and iconography on, inter alia,
stone, clay and papyrus, as well as buildings, sculpture, weapons, household items, religious
artefacts and other.2 The word means the analysis of everything ancient. In classical Greece
it meant the study of ancient history. Chronicles of history on written records often need
more specialised research to supplement the documentary evidence. Archaeology, covering a
vast area of exploration, could be an auxiliary of history. 3
Scholarly curiosity and the search for knowledge is a motivation for excavation. 4 Archae-
ology establishes the possibility for new images and a new concept of history. During the
past century it furthermore contributed to a new Jewish tradition whereby its old sacred texts
are interpreted and reinterpreted. Biblical and post-biblical archaeology is accepted by the
Jewish public in Israel as a sanctioned and valuable discipline. Ancient excavated sites even
became 'objects of secular-national pilgrimage'.5 Israel itself has one of the longest excava-
tion and subsequent scholarly research traditions. Apart from the critical analysis of research
data, some of the basic questions regarding the interaction between material culture and his-
torical texts have to be addressed. Clear correlations in this regard should be established be-
tween ethnicity and material-culture features. Scholars have observed that many artefacts,
initially typified with the Israelites, could likewise be linked to neighbouring societies, dem-
onstrating that the same items could have been used in different communities. Discussions on
the methodology of effectively integrating textual and archaeological data have recently
raised interest amongst concerned scholars. 6 William Dever,7 however, is of the opinion that
many biblical scholars refrain from referring to archaeological data. He takes a brief look at
relatively recent publications of, inter alia, Gerstenberger, 8 Van der Toorn9 and Ackerman.10
1
Van Beek 1962a:195.
2
Van Beek 1962a:195. Archaeological artefacts are also known as "finds".
3
Charles-Picard 1983:9.
4
Biran 1994a:21.
5
Shavit 1997:49-52.
6
Silberman & Small 1997:17, 21, 25-26.
7
Dever 2005:38, 43, 47, 51.
8
Gerstenberger 2002.
9
Van der Toorn 1994.
10
Ackerman 1992.
22
Dever11 observes that although Gerstenberger 'focuses admirably on family, clan, tribe … and
on common social structure … he makes only minimum use of actual archaeological data'.
Likewise, Van der Toorn 'adduces almost none of the rich archaeological data that we now
possess', in contrast to 'Ackerman's treatment of both the textual and the archaeological evi-
dence'. Dever thus comes to the conclusion that biblical scholars generally do not realise the
"revolutionary potential" of archaeology. Similarly, not so many scholars are probably famil-
iar with less sensational – but nevertheless significant – discoveries during the nineteenth cen-
tury.12
Striking analogies between archaeological data and folklore 13 in the biblical texts indicate that
the actual remains of early Israel have been revealed, disclosing a completely different picture
to that which is generally accepted of the origins and early development of Israel. 14 The his-
toricity of biblical accounts depends to a great extent on the aims of the compilers and edi-
tors.15 In the reconstruction of biblical history the relation between text and artefact should be
determined.16 Yet, at the same time, it should be borne in mind that archaeology cannot
"prove" the Hebrew Bible.17 The first task of a biblical scholar in his or her research should
be to focus on the primary data.18 As a "legitimate component" of history, archaeological data
are often all we have for understanding textual remains. 19 However, according to Zertal,20
although archaeology uses modern technologies, 'many of its conclusions are drawn on the
basis of intuition, rather than on objective measure'. In addition hereto, Halpern 21 indicates
that text and artefact "encode intention". The contents of history can only be conjectured.
Textual scholars have less access to the technologies for analysing ceramics than the archae-
ologists have for analysing text. They often rely on text to interpret their excavated data.
11
Dever 2005:62.
12
The importance of Assyriology was widely acclaimed after the sensational announcements of George Smith,
who read a paper to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in December 1872. In this paper he gave translations of
a cuneiform account of the Flood. In a letter to the London Daily Telegraph in March 1875 he identified frag-
ments of a creation account (Cathcart 1997:81). Assyriology is the scholarly study of the Assyrian literature,
history and culture (Deist 1990:23). Cuneiform script is the wedge-shaped writing system on clay tablets, origi-
nally developed by die Sumerians in Mesopotamia from approximately 3000 BC (Kenyon 1987:184).
13
Folklore: the beliefs, customs and anecdotes of a community that are passed on from one generation to another
(Deist 1990:98).
14
Dever 1997a:21, 27.
15
Bartlett 1989:91.
16
Silberman & Small 1997:17.
17
Dever 1997b:301.
18
Davies 1994c:25.
19
Drinkard 1998:175.
20
Zertal 1991:30.
21
Halpern 1997:331.
23
Dever22 points out that it is an illusion to infer that the explicit meaning of a text can be de-
termined since, in archaeology, everything ultimately depends on context.
Serious biblical scholars acknowledge the late post-exilic final redaction of the Hebrew Bible.
Israelite historiography is currently in a crisis, the question being whether, in principle, bibli-
cal sources are of secondary value and what role archaeology plays in writing a history of an-
cient Israel. It is important that the relation between text and artefact be redetermined. 23
Jamieson-Drake24 indicates that, due to an unwarranted backlog, excavation data are either
unreported or inadequately reported. Financial constraints are one of the key issues in the
present situation. It is essential that excavation results be systematically researched. For bib-
lical scholars and scholars of Ancient Near Eastern studies, decipherment of Egyptian and cu-
neiform inscriptions was one of the most significant developments in the apposite field. 25
Apart from inscriptions and artefacts, Ancient Near Eastern iconography is of paramount im-
portance as pictures (symbols) are "more evocative of the past" than texts. An image would
be the gateway to some "invisible, abstract reality".26
Unless a positive correlation can be established between biblical and archaeological descrip-
tions of Iron Age Palestine, Davies 27 regards biblical Israel as a literary creation and he pro-
poses that, until such a correlation is evident, archaeological data be accepted as primary.
Carter28 is concerned that Syro-Palestinian archaeologists commit themselves to the uncover-
ing of textual and artefactual data primarily concerning monarchical and prophetic Israel,
whereas the Persian Period has been grossly neglected. Ehrlich 29 points out that, although
minimal sources from the Persian and Hellenistic periods are available, minimalists 30 recon-
struct an "ideological history" of that period on the basis of some biblical texts. In contrast,
the maximalists31 endeavour to coalesce the biblical and extra-biblical material without duly
22
Dever 2005:15, 54.
23
For key issues in the current debate and the role of archaeology, see Dever (1997b:297-307).
24
Jamieson-Drake 1991:46.
25
See Cathcart (1997:81-95) for aspects on the development of Ancient Near Eastern decipherment.
26
Dever 2005:54.
27
Davies 1994c:25.
28
Carter 1994:106.
29
Ehrlich 2001:65.
30
For a discussion on minimalistic (or revisionistic) views on the historicity of the Masoretic Text, see § 8.9. A
newer generation of biblical scholars style themselves as minimalists, revisionists, or even new nihilists. They
negate the historical reliability of biblical texts and seldom acknowledge an historical Israel in the Iron Age
(Dever 2001:23, 47).
31
The maximalists or credulists are opponents to the minimalists (Dever 2001:34).
24
considering the respective components individually. Contrary to the majority of the preced-
ing arguments, Holladay32 rather explicitly contends that 'ninety-nine percent of archaeology
deals with the interpretation of shreds and tatters of ancient garbage and destructive episodes'.
On the whole it is evident that archaeology contributes extensively to the comprehension of

biblical and Ancient Near Eastern history and culture. The excavation of numerous texts and
ensuing recovery of Ancient Near Eastern languages has major consequences for biblical re-
search. Apart from the biblical text being more lucid, previously obscure social customs, re-
ligious practices and laws, and their significance in ancient times have been clarified to a
large extent. In some instances, extra-biblical material corroborates biblical textual details.
This research acknowledges the intrinsic value of archaeological data; however, considering
the particular emphasis herein, a detailed deliberation of archaeological material cannot be
justified. Nonetheless, a number of relevant archaeological finds are briefly discussed.
2.2 Radiocarbon dating, palynology and remote sensing

Radiocarbon dating
'Radiocarbon33 (carbon 14)34 dating is a method of estimating the absolute age of a carbon-
bearing material by comparing its radioactivity with that of a modern sample.' 35 Substances
up to seventy thousand years old can currently be dated. This science has revolutionised the
research on prehistory and furnishes important information on archaeological remains. Ra-
diocarbon dating has been invaluable to establish the absolute chronology of Palestine as from
the period ca 50 000 BC up to the end of the fourth millennium BC. Most carbon-containing
substances are acceptable for dating purposes. A piece of linen cloth – presumably used as a
wrapping for one of the Qumran scrolls – was the first Palestinian carbon-14 sample dated,
while the first of a series of carbon-14 datings was from a group of nine radiocarbon results
from excavations at Jericho. Since the 1970s a large amount of radiocarbon materials from
the southern Levant were processed and the results published. If archaeological or historical
methods cannot give a precise date of an event, it is worthwhile to collect and process a car-
bon-14 sample. However, most cultural remains and stratigraphic phases later than
32
Holladay 2001:136.
33
'Radiocarbon is produced in the upper atmosphere by the collision of cosmic particles with nitrogen atoms.
Newly formed radiocarbon atoms revert back to nitrogen atoms in time because they are unstable. We can use
the decay of radiocarbon to determine the age of a material because the average rate of the reaction is constant
and has been determined empirically' (Rech 2004:214).
34
Known as 14C.
35
Weinstein 1988:235.
25
ca 2000 BC are more accurately dated by archaeological and historical evidence than through
carbon-14 dating. 36
Walls, floors, roads and aqueducts were constructed of mortar and plaster37 in the Ancient
Near East. Plaster technology appeared since the seventh millennium BC with the establish-
ment of large towns. Recently some component materials in lime plasters have been success-
fully radiocarbon dated.38 This technique has a great potential to determine the age of par-
tially exposed structures. One of the main limitations of this process is the cost involved. 39 It
is more commonly cited for prehistoric than for historic periods. 40
Palynology
Palynology41 is a science that has only relatively recently been applied to archaeology. The
discipline mainly involves pollen grains, as well as 'some other microscopic fossils and organ-
isms that remain in an analyzed sample after the extraction of the pollen'. 42 Palynology is di-
vided into three categories.43 Regarding the field of archaeology, palynological techniques
can yield useful information on aspects of the natural environment. 44 The interpretation of
pollen-analysis results in excavations is, however, a serious problem that archaeologists and
palynologists encounter. Due to human activities – such as fire or deforestation – the excava-
tion site can hardly yield a complete "continuous sequence", crucial for the examination of the
natural environment. Nevertheless, pollen analysis could also be applied to other excavated
materials, such as the contents of containers. 45
Although the process is not so "new" anymore, palynology is often referred to as "new ar-
chaeology". Human activity is dynamic and in a continual process of evolution. Proponents
36
Weinstein 1988:236, 242-245. For information on the principles, methodology and calibration of radiocarbon
dating, see Weinstein (1988:236-242).
37
Mortar is a mixture of lime, sand and water, to keep bricks and stone together; plaster is also a mixture includ-
ing lime and sand, for coating of walls and other structures (Hanks 1992:314, 365).
38
Plaster samples from the Siloam Tunnel in Jerusalem and from Khirbet Qana in the Lower Galilee, have been
successfully dated (Rech 2004:212). Khirbet, the Arabic word for ruin, refers to an ancient site where there are
visible ruins on the surface. In contrast to a "tell" with many occupation levels, Khirbet usually refers to a site
with only a few occupation levels (Drinkard & Gibson 1988:466).
39
Rech 2004:212, 218.
40
Kenyon 1987:184.
41
The word palynology is derived from the Greek word meaning "dust" (Horowitz 1988:261).
42
Horowitz 1988:261.
43
The categories are: the study of pollen grains (which is the field of botanists), the study of fossil pollen grains,
and the study of fossil pollen grains which are too old to allocate with certainty and are often from extinct plants
(Horowitz 1988:261).
44
For a discussion on palynology as background for an archaeologist, see Horowitz (1988:262-271).
45
Horowitz 1988:275-278.
26
of the "new archaeology" attempt to 'explain why, rather than simply to describe the ways that
human activity has taken particular forms'. 46 Palynology facilitates the appreciation by ar-
chaeologists for the response of human activity to the environment and the subsequent modi-
fication thereof. It has become one of the most significant techniques in the reconstruction of
the palaeo-environment. However, due to the soils and sediments in Israel which are mainly
procured from the natural limestone bedrock, palynology is a complex venture in this coun-
try.47 Dever48 indicates that the newer approaches of the "new archaeology" are regarded by
some scholars as revolutionary. As such, Syro-Palestinian archaeology has visibly undergone
changes that 'constitute at least a revolution in the making', 49 and has become an independent
discipline of biblical archaeology. Dever 50 furthermore states that, although there 'is a con-
sensus on the major emphases' of this intellectual movement in American archaeology, it is
'too diverse and still too controversial to be readily characterized.'
The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin51 has been debated for decades on end. Some devo-
tees believe the shroud to be genuine and results from any attempt to examine it scientifically
are either accepted – when in the affirmative – or met with scepticism, as when it was radio-
carbon dated as from the Medieval Age. During the 1980s small portions of the shroud were
sent to different independent laboratories for radiocarbon dating. Three of these laboratories
dated it between AD 1322 and AD 1340, with a tolerance of fifty to sixty-five years. These
test results were immediately challenged. Pollen grains gathered from the shroud were also
examined. 52
46
Longstaff & Hussey 1997:151.
47
Longstaff & Hussey 1997:151, 153-154. For a discussion on a selected sample from Sepphoris in the Galilee,
see Longstaff & Hussey (1997:154-162). Sepphoris was an important town in the Lower Galilee during the Hel-
lenistic Period. Herod Antipas [tetrarch of Galilee, 4 BC – AD 39] fortified the city and made it the capital of
the Galilee. After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (AD 70), it became an important Jewish centre
(Negev & Gibson 2001:454).
48
Dever 1988:338.
49
Dever 1988:338. .
50
Dever 1988:340-341.
51
The Shroud of Turin is alleged to have been the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. Full-length front and back
images, of what seems to be a crucified man, appear on the fine linen cloth. In AD 30, Eusebius – a Christian
historian – was the first to report on "a cloth with an image on it". From Edessa (in modern Turkey) the shroud
found its way to France and eventually to Turin where it has been kept since 1578 in the Cathedral of Saint John
the Baptist (Bryant 2000:36-38).
52
Bryant (2000:36, 38-41) – a botanist and palynologist – however, is sceptical 'of pollen data that are not de-
rived from multi-species comparisons', and therefore, is not convinced 'that current pollen studies can be used to
authenticate the shroud'. Recently, significant questions have been put forward, such as the possibility that the
radiocarbon sample was chosen from a rewoven area and not from the original shroud (Govier 2004:56).
27
Apart from pollen, faunal remains are also recovered from sites and analysed. For instance,
faunal remains found at the site Jebel el-Jill, 53 included those of cattle, gazelle, sheep and
goat, representing primarily animals hunted for food by the inhabitants. 54
Remote sensing
By remote sensing and advanced computer analysis archaeologists are equipped with expedi-
tious, inexpensive methods for acquiring and analysing data; a possibility for research archae-
ologists were unaware of up to now. The technological advancement of remote sensing fur-
nishes reliable information that can be successfully applied to archaeological and ethno-
graphic55 explorations. A wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum is covered by remote
sensing instruments, advancing unlimited possibilities for archaeological research. Informa-
tion undetected by the human eye or conventional photography is observed by these instru-
ments, supplying surface data of a large region. Surface cover, such as desert sand, could,
furthermore, be penetrated by radar56 microwave signals. Archaeologists can be instrumental
in the development of a technology with unlimited possibilities. 57
2.3 Ebla archives

58
Tell Mardikh-Ebla is situated in northern Syria between the modern cities Hama and
Aleppo. Since excavations started at the site it was evident that Tell Mardikh-Ebla – later at-
tested as the capital of an immense empire – had been an outstanding centre in antiquity. 59
53
Jebel el-Jill is a Timnian site in the vicinity of the village of Ras en-Naqb, in southern Jordan (Henry & Turn-
bull 1985:45-46, 60). Timnah is a short distance north of the Gulf of Elath, enclosed on three sides by the Zuqe
Timnah mountain range (Negev & Gibson 2001:507).
54
Henry & Turnbull 1985:50, 60.
55
Ethnography could be a synonym for ethnology or cultural anthropology, thus describing, inter alia, habits,
customs and social organisation of a particular society (Deist 1990:87).
56
Radar – Radio Detection and Ranging – makes use of microwave energy, rather than light energy to image an
object (Sever 1988:295).
57
Sever 1988:279-281, 294, 299.
58
A tell (alternately written as "tell" or "tel") is 'an artificial mound formed by the overlying debris from the set-
tlements and ramparts of ancient cities, each which has been built on top of the preceding ones' (Negev & Gib-
son 2001:497). Many such mounds are to be found in large regions of the Near East.
59
The city Ebla was occupied during the period 3000-2000 BC. It repeatedly came into conflict with the Meso-
potamian empire of Akkad and was eventually destroyed by either Sargon or Naram-Sin of Akkad (Wiseman
1982a:295). In ca 2350 BC the city was set on fire (Milano 1995:1221). According to the Ebla texts, the urban
city had a population of approximately twenty-six thousand (Cornelius & Venter 2002:113), while – obviously
referring to the Greater Ebla –the estimate was two hundred and sixty thousand people. The city was divided
into an acropolis and a lower city. Four administrative centres – which included the palace of the king – were
situated on the acropolis (Pettinato 1976:47). The royal palace was the culmination of a process of "secondary
urbanisation" which pertains to a powerful growth during the middle of the third millennium BC (Milano
1995:1219). With reference to its geographical dimensions alone, the ancient empire of Ebla could be regarded
as one of the greatest powers in the Ancient Near East during the third millennium BC. Its influence was far-
reaching, including places such as Palestine, Sinai, Cyprus and Mesopotamia (Pettinato 1976:45-46).
28
The first significant discovery was a dedication to the goddess Eštar,60 inscribed on the statue
of king Ibbit-Lim. 61 Thereafter, the first archive – serving a common purpose62 – was exca-
vated, followed shortly by the uncovering of the royal archives of Ebla of the third millen-
nium BC. This historical discovery enabled Pettinato 63 to identify a very ancient North-West
Semitic language that he classified as Paleo-Canaanite. The archive yielded approximately
eighteen thousand texts, dated ca 2300 BC. These texts are important for, inter alia, an his-
torical background for the Genesis narratives. 64 Adam – attested as a North-West Semitic
personal name – has comparable forms in Amorite and in texts from Ebla. 65
Most of the documents on the tablets are of an economic-administrative nature, giving an in-
dication of how enormous this empire had been. 66 The name Haran [Harran] – a northern
Mesopotamian city – appears for the first time in the late third millennium BC administrative
texts from Ebla. These texts mention gift exchanges and trade with Haran. The name of the
city appears frequently in Genesis in the Hebrew Bible, in connection with the patriarchs. 67
Pettinato68 explains that texts with a mythological background refer to Mesopotamian deities
such as Enki,69 Enlil,70 Utu71 and Inanna.72 Around five hundred gods are attested at Ebla.
Literary texts also include incantations, proverbs and hymns to divinities. In a curse formula
60
Eštar was mother goddess and deity of the stars and planets. She was worshipped by Semitic-speaking people
in Ebla. Eštar is the old Akkadian form of Ištar (Ann & Imel 1993:329).
61
Ibbit-Lim was lord [king] of the city of Ebla; a dedicatory inscription was discovered during excavations in
1968 (Pettinato 1976:44).
62
This archive contained forty-two tablets, which dealt mainly with administrative aspects regarding metal,
wood and textiles, as well as 'a school tablet listing personal names attested at Ebla' (Pettinato 1976:45).
63
Pettinato 1976:44-45.
64
One of the great ruling kings at Ebla was Eb(e)rum, frequently compared with Eber ( rb[ Gn 10:24). More
than five hundred listed place-names incorporate cities such as Lachish, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, while per-
sonal names include Išra’el, Išma’el, Abarama and Mika’el. There is, however, no proof that these personal
names are to be identified with similar biblical names. Nevertheless, these texts are valuable for our perception
of the Patriarchal Age (Wiseman 1982a:295).
65
In Ebla, a-da-mu has been confirmed as a one-word personal name and also as an element of a compound per-
sonal name, such as a-dam-ma-lik. The Amorite a-da-mu has been established elsewhere (Layton 1997:22).
66
Pettinato 1976:45.
67
Holloway 1995:279. The name Haran appears in, inter alia, Genesis 11:31; 12:4-5; 28:10; 29:4.
68
Pettinato 1976:45, 48-50.
69
The Sumerian deity Enki (known as the Assyro-Babylonian Ea) was the god of the Apsu, and thus principal
divinity of the waters; the Apsu was the personification of an abyss filled with water, which encircled the earth
(Guirand 1996:49, 56, 61).
70
The Sumerian Enlil symbolised the forces of nature. From early times he was considered god of the hurricane
with the deluge as his weapon. Earthly kings were representatives of Enlil. He was involved in events on earth
and was regarded to be in control of man's fate (Guirand 1996:55).
71
The Sumerian and Mesopotamian Utu [Uttu] was goddess of the earth and nature, vegetation and weaving.
After consorting with Enki she gave birth to the plants (Ann & Imel 1993:353).
72
Inanna, from Sumer and Mesopotamia, was also known as Queen of Heaven. She was ruler of the sky, earth
and fertility and had power over death and rebirth (Ann & Imel 1993:333). See also § 3.4.
29
addressed to an Assyrian king the 'god Sun, the god Adad,73 and his own personal god' are
invoked. Abundant data about the principal deities of Ebla and their cult are supplied. The
term Il, which refers to a specific Ugaritic divinity Il/El,74 is also a generic term for "god",
while Ya(w)75 could be understood as a hypocoristicon.76 Matthiae77 indicates that the literary
texts present versions of religious perceptions on two different levels. Examples of exorcisms
are conserved in an ancient traditional and popular belief, while 'myths seem to be the fruit of
theological speculation by an educated priesthood'.78 These genres are both Sumerian in ori-
gin and, interestingly enough, leading characters in Eblaite myths are Sumerian great gods. It
seems that Dagan79 – otherwise known as "The Lord of the Land" – was the principal deity.
Dagan was probably worshipped in many manifestations, representing the local gods of major
cities. Phonetic difficulties have to be clarified before the interpretation "Dagan of Ca-
naan",80 can be accepted for the name Dagan kananaum.81 Other noteworthy divinities in-
clude Rasap (the Rešef of later documents), Šipiš or Šamaš, Aštar – a masculine divinity,
unlike the Mesopotamian female counterpart – Astarte,82 Adad, Malik, Kašalu,83 Asherah84
and Kamiš,85 as well as the Hurrian gods Adamma and Aštabi. Texts attest the existence of
temples for Dagan, Aštar, Kamoš and Rasap. Correspondence between the Mesopotamian
and Syrian divinities bears witness to possible syncretism between the cultures of Ebla and
Mesopotamia. In the correspondence, certain gods were equated although, curiously enough,
73
Adad, the Assyro-Babylonian storm god, was usually represented standing on a bull with thunderbolts in both
hands. He was god of lightning and the tempest, letting loose the thunder and storm. Adad also had a beneficial
side, being responsible for rains and fertility (Guirand 1996:60). For further discussion, see § 3.5.
74
See § 3.7.
75
See § 4.3.2 for a discussion of the extra-biblical reference to Ya(w).
76
A hypocoristicon or hypocoristic name is the shorter form of a compound name, normally a theophoric name;
the latter being a proper name containing the name of a deity (Deist 1990:118, 259).
77
Matthiae 1980:189.
78
Matthiae 1980:189.
79
Also known as Dagon.
80
The title recalls the well-known "Dagan of the Philistines". The ethnic term "Canaanite" is thus much older
than generally believed (Pettinato 1976:48). Dagan (which became Dagon), the Phoenician grain god, was orig-
inally a fertility god worshipped in the Euphrates Valley. In the Ugaritic epics he is referred to as the father of
Ba‛al (Albright 1968:124, 143). See § 2.8: Ugarit and § 3.5: Ba‛al.
81
Matthiae 1980:187, 189.
82
See § 3.3.
83
Košar of the Ugarit texts (Pettinato 1976:48).
84
See § 3.2.
85
Probably the Kamoš of later texts; the form kĕmiš of the biblical text suggests that the Masoretes had very an-
cient documents at their disposal (Pettinato 1976:48). 'Kamish, is certainly an archaic form of Kemosh' (Matthi-
ae 1980:187). Kemoš was the name or the title of the god of the Moabites. He was also known as father of Me-
sha, king of the Moabites. Solomon built a sanctuary for Kemoš 'on the mountain east of Jerusalem' (1 Ki 11:7).
In the Mesha-inscription (see § 4.3.8) Kemoš is synthesised with the Venus Star, Athtar (a masculine divinity).
It can thus be deduced that Kemoš was the manifestation of this astral deity (Gray 1962a:556).
30
Enlil was not equated with any West Semitic god.86 The earliest allusions to the goddess
Asherah seem to be in the Ebla texts where she appears as a 'lesser but well-attested deity'. 87
Although Ebla was destroyed by the Akkadians ca 2300 BC, the city was rebuilt and contin-
ued its widely-known trade relations. 88 During the period 1800 BC to 1650 BC Ebla pro-
duced small pottery jars of which a limited number are prominent therein that they are deco-
rated with human or animal figurines not comparable outside Ebla. Characteristic of these
decorations are "tightly-packed row(s) of super-imposed bird heads". The birds face to the
front with outstretched wings, fan-shaped tails and large applied buttons for eyes. Some
specimens have birds with two heads. More elaborate motifs include naked female figurines.
These have "grotesque" faces and button-shaped breasts. The bird-figurines are allegedly
doves that can be associated with the cult of Ishtar.89 Frequently-portrayed naked female
figurines – facing to the front – are a clear indication of Ishtar's realm. These small jars were
most likely a symbol of the popular, rather than official, religious activity of the Eblaites. 90
Sculptures of the nineteenth century BC represent a type of royal tiara, decorated by a pair of
horns, 91 which is characteristic of the Eblaite king. 92 A temple and sacred area of Ishtar was
in the lower town of Ebla while another temple dedicated to her stood on the acropolis. 'Ish-
tar was the great patron deity of Old Syrian Ebla.'93 The number of Eblaite gods with Semitic
names is significant, notably deities such as Ishtar.94 A temple close to the royal necropolis 95
was probably dedicated to the cult of Resheph, deity of the Netherworld.96
The Ebla archives confirm a relationship between the language of Ebla and the Canaanite lan-
guages of the second and first millennium BC, thus supporting the classification "Paleo-
Canaanite". In this regard the phenomenon of Eblaite bilingualism should be noted. The
86
87
Day 1986:385.
88
In the eight hundred years between ca 2400 to ca 1600 BC – when it was finally destroyed – Ebla was a flour-
ishing empire. Apart from brief interruptions it sustained its political and cultural leadership position (Matthiae
1980:56).
89
See § 3.4.
90
Pinnock 2000:122, 124, 126, 128.
91
In the apocalyptic application of horns in Daniel 7 and 8, the horns on the creatures represent individual rulers
of world empires. Horns symbolised power, as in Zedekiah's prophetic action (1 Ki 22:11) and in the prophet
Zechariah's vision (Zch 1:18-21) (Taylor 1982:491). Zedekiah was one of four hundred court prophets under
king Ahab of Israel [874-853 BC] (Baker 1982:1277). See footnote on "horns" in § 2.14.3.
92
Matthiae 1990:347-348.
93
Pinnock 2000:121.
94
Milano 1995:1225.
95
Necropolis: burial site.
96
Matthiae 1990:349.
31
cuneiform system of writing in which all the documents of Ebla were constructed was intro-
duced from Sumer. Personal names attested at Ebla illustrate the relationship of this world to
the biblical milieu of a later period. Ebla, furthermore, affords the "oldest vocabularies of re-
corded history". The existence of an important scribal school at Ebla is attested. Texts men-
tion Mesopotamian scribes at this school. Encyclopedic lists and many more texts are ident i-
cal with texts found at the Mesopotamian cities of Sumer, Fara and Abu Salabikh. Valuable
data are a clear indication that Ebla was a productive centre of notable significance. Recipro-
cal duplicating of Eblaite and Sumerian texts indicates a cultural exchange that existed in the
Ancient Near East during the third millennium BC.97
Matthiae98 mentions that Ebla 'has been revealed first of all as one of the critical, early turning
points in the spread of city civilisation to the West … . The discoveries at Ebla answer cer-
tain questions but those they ask are just as fundamental'.
2.4 Mari documents

Mari, one of the largest ancient cities in Syria, is presently known as Tell Hariri. The city was
situated on the bank of the Euphrates River, at the intersection of two caravan roads: the one
crossing the Syrian Desert linking the city with the Mediterranean coast, and the other leading
to Mesopotamia, as one of the main highways between Assyria and Babylonia. 99 Mari was a
"roaring trade centre".100 Excavations started soon after Bedouins unearthed a headless stone
statue in 1933. Inscriptions found during the excavations identified the city. Reference to a
city "Mari" was previously known from records of the campaigns of Sargon, 101 as well as
from cuneiform texts found at Nippur 102 and Kish103 and in letters from Hammu-rapi.104
97
98
Matthiae 1980:226-227.
99
Lewy 1962:264.
100
Cornelius & Venter 2002:12.
101
Sargon, also known as Sargon the Great and founder of the Dynasty of Akkad (2334-2279 BC) (Bodine
1994:33).
102
Nippur, a city in southern Mesopotamia, was founded ca 4000 BC. Although it was never a dynastic capital
or held any political power, it was Sumer's "undisputed religious and cultural centre". It held an important acad-
emy where myths and hymns were composed. Among the most important finds are nearly four thousand tablets
and fragments inscribed with Sumerian literary works, as well as thousands of inscriptions invaluable for Su-
mer's political history (Kramer 1962:553-554).
103
Kish, the capital of a city-state in southern Mesopotamia, flourished ca 3200-3000 BC. According to Sumeri-
an tradition, Kish was the first dynasty to rule after the Flood. Apart from finds of early palaces and tablets at
Tell el-Ukheimer, a major flood deposit level dated ca 3300 BC was established (Wiseman 1982c:665).
104
Hammu-rapi was the sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon (1792-1750 BC). Hammu-rapi, a theophoric
name, appears in Mari texts as a royal name. A selection of his legal judgements, the "Code of Hammu-rapi", is
inscribed on a stele found at Susa (Oppenheim 1962a:517-519). These laws of Hammu-rapi are a representation
of the common law and order throughout much of the Ancient Near East. Although a direct comparison with
legal aspects in the Masoretic Text – such as in Exodus and Deuteronomy – is not possible, many similarities can
be determined, even in the wording (Wiseman 1982b:451).
32
Approximately twenty-five thousand cuneiform tablets were found in the archives of the pal-
ace of Zimri-Lim. 105 The excavated documents – comprising economic, legal and diplomatic
texts – are exceptionally important, indicating a flourishing kingdom at the beginning of the
second millennium BC, with diplomatic ties with kings, royal families and ambassadors of
neighbouring countries. These texts, furthermore, shed light on the history of the Ancient
Near East, as well as on that of the early Hebrews. 106
Some fifty prophetic texts are among the numerous documents found in the Mari archives.
Mari prophecy is significant for the origins of Ancient Near Eastern and biblical prophecy, as
well as for its relation to biblical prophecy. 107 These texts were normally constituted of a
regular pattern of five form-elements.108 According to the prophetic letters, most of the ora-
cles in Mari were originally communicated verbally, which is in agreement with the form of
communication by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. Scholarly awareness of 'the transforma-
tion from oral to written form represents an important shift in the transmission of prophetic
oracles'.109 So far – in cuneiform literature – these Mari texts represent the nearest parallel to
biblical prophecy. 110 As in the Hebrew Bible, we find examples of Mari prophets who aspire
to influence the foreign politics of a state.111 The example described in 1 Kings 20 (see previ-
ous footnote), is probably dealing with "fictitious prophecy" composed much later in a written
form to 'transmit a theological message'. 112
A tribe named TUR-meš-ia-mi-na – meaning "sons of the South" – is frequently mentioned

in texts from the royal archives. This tribe had settled in towns and villages and was re-
nowned for its military ability. These peoples were not ruled by kings, but were headed by
chieftains and elders. The names of the tribesmen are West Semitic. These names include a
large number of theophoric names alluding to the moon god Erah or Sîn, the grain god
105
During the reigns of Iahdun-Lim and Zimri-Lim the city of Mari was very prosperous. In their time they re-
stored the city, but unfortunately it was later destroyed by Hammu-rapi (Negev & Gibson 2001:317). Initially
Hammu-rapi and Zimri-Lim had a good relationship of mutual trust and co-operation, even exchanging troops.
Hammu-rapi, however, later turned his back on Zimri-Lim and in 1759 BC destroyed the walls of Mari (Arnold
1994:49).
106
107
Anbar 1994:41.
108
The elements are: name of the addressee and sender, and the relationship between them; introductory re-
marks; presentation of the prophet, inter alia title, name, status; statement of the prophet – divine message, ora-
cle, vision, dream; statement of the sender concerning the prophet and appeal to the king to make a decision
(Schart 1995:76).
109
Schart 1995:75, 89.
110
Schart 1995:75.
111
For a discussion of an example in the Mari history and, in comparison, the events described in 1 Kings 20, see
Anbar (1994:41-48).
112
Anbar 1994:47.
33
Dagon, and others.113 The habiru114 and the tribe of the Benjaminites are mentioned in
some of the texts. Scholars link both these groups to the early Hebrews. 115 According to
Lewy, 116 the relation of the tribe TUR-meš-ia-mi-na to the Israelite tribe of Benjamin is ob-
vious. The Benjaminites possibly migrated from Mesopotamia and Haran 117 to Palestine,
taking with them traditions as reflected in the patriarchal narratives. Movements of nomadic
peoples in the vicinity of Mari are described in the Mari texts. This information in the texts
is important for the understanding of the Patriarchal Period. Some nomads, as well as citi-
zens of Mari, had names corresponding to names in Genesis, such as Abram, Ishmael, Jacob,
Rebekah and Laban. 118 Pitard119 mentions that the Aramaeans were portrayed in early
sources as 'large, tribally orientated groups' – a description corresponding to that of large
nomadic tribes as known from the Mari archives – although a considerable number of tribal
members lived in towns and villages. Albright 120 indicates that the Mari texts are 'yielding
authentic information about the Patriarchal Age'.
The most important buildings uncovered during excavations at Tell Hariri were – apart from
palaces – temples of Ishtar, 121 Shamash,122 Ninhursag, 123 Ishtarat,124 Ninni-Zara125 and Da-
gan,126 as well as a ziggurat.127 Apart from the normal cult practices, the peoples of the
113
Lewy 1962:266.
114
habiru: the name of a group of people. The earliest reference is from texts from Ur, ca 2050 BC. In some
instances they appear to be a social class but, according to texts from Alalakh and the Amarna Letters (see § 2.5),
they emerge as a separate ethnic group. In the lists of social classes they are mentioned with the lower classes.
Texts from Mari mention habiru operating in hordes of semi-nomads in the regions of the Balih and Euphrates
rivers. The term may also denote a soldier or officer; habiru is probably an Akkadian form related to Hebrew,
and presumably the Hebrews were a branch of the habiru (Haldar 1962:506).
115
116
Lewy 1962:266.
117
Also known as Harran.
118
Arnold & Beyer 2002:207.
119
Pitard 1994:209.
120
Albright 1960:236.
121
See footnote on Eštar in § 2.3.
122
Shamash, the Assyro-Babylonian solar deity, comes forth every morning from the Mountain of the East, with
luminous rays emitting from his shoulders. In his role as judge, he was seated on a throne holding the sceptre
and ring in his right hand (Guirand 1996:57-58).
123
The Sumerian Ninhursag was mother goddess, creator and consort of Enki (see footnote on Enki in § 2.3).
Her shrine dated from ca 4000-3500 BC. She had various names, but became Ninhursag as mother of the earth
and its vegetation (Ann & Imel 1993:341).
124
A form of Ishtar, Mesopotamian Queen of the Stars. She was Ashtoreth in the Book of Kings, Aphrodite from
Greece and perhaps equivalent to Astarte, Athyr, Athor or Hathor (from Egypt) (Ann & Imel 1993:334). See
footnote on sphinx and Hathor in § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach".
125
Alternate forms of Ninni/Nini are Inanna, Ininni, Innin, Ama Usum Gal Ana and Ishtar. The Mesopotamian
and Sumerian Inanna was also known as "Queen of Heaven". She presided over fertility, life and death (Ann &
Imel 1993: 333, 341). See also § 3.4.
126
Dagan or Dagon was the god of corn and fertility, worshipped in both Canaan and Mesopotamia. A number
of kings in Akkad and Babylonia regarded themselves to be the sons of Dagan (Storm 2001:28). See also foot-
note in § 2.3.
127
A ziggurat, or temple tower, was a huge type of stepped pyramid structure with a temple at the top. It nor-
mally had three – some even more – storeys connected by external staircases. The ziggurat at Ur is the best
34
Ancient Near East probably were involved in some form of divination. 128 It was considered
to be the most dependable method of divine communication. Omens were deemed to be
more reliable than direct contact. Excellent examples were found in the royal library of
Mari. 129 Texts from the Mari archives, furthermore, refer to the North Mesopotamian city
Haran as a religious centre for the West Semitic tribes. Haran played an important role in
the patriarchal traditions.130 The moon god Sîn was worshipped there. 131 It is unlikely that
the gods of Mari, being also represented in the pantheon of Haran, were unknown to
Terah132 and his family. In Joshua 24:2 Israel is reminded of the "other gods" served by
Terah and his kin. 133 The first time the name of the city Haran appears, is in administrative
texts from Ebla, while the Mari archives are the first to attest to the cult of Sîn of Haran. 134
2.5 Amarna Letters and the habiru

Akhetaten – or el-Amarna, 135 as it is known – was occupied only during the time when it was
the capital city of pharaoh Akhenaten. 136 The royal archive – containing tablets including the
so-called el-Amarna Letters – was discovered in one of the royal residences next to the
preserved example. It was built by the Sumerian king Ur-Nammu (2112-2095 BC). This ziggurat dominated
the city of Ur. It symbolised the sacred mountain of the deity Nanna, the moon god (Oliphant 1992:10). Offer-
ings were made in the temple at the top. It was accepted that the deity descended to communicate with the devo-
tees. The Babylonian ziggurat of Marduk was seven storeys high and probably inspired the biblical story of the
Tower of Babel (Storm 2001:48). See footnote on Marduk, § 2.14.6.
128
'Divination is a process by which the will of the gods is determined by observing nature' (Negev & Gibson
2001:142).
129
Ecstatic prophetic messages, which often originated among lay people, were concerned with king Zimri-Lim's
military campaigns against Hammu-rapi. The messages on clay tablets, accompanied by hair and a piece of
garment of the messenger, were sent to the king. This person claimed to be a representative of the god (Negev &
Gibson 2001:142).
130
Genesis 11:31; 24:4, 10; 28:10.
131
132
Terah, father of Abram, Nahor and Haran (Gn 11:27). He is normally associated with the moon god Sîn.
Terah settled in Haran after emigrating from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gn 11:31). Joshua refers to him as an idolater
(Jos 24:2) (Charley 1982:1175).
133
Wiseman 1982d:737.
134
Holloway 1995:279.
135
The name of the city, Akhetaten, means "the horizon of the sun-disc". The city stretches along the Nile, ap-
proximately hundred and ninety kilometres north of Thebes and hundred and twenty kilometres south of the Nile
Delta. Its temple complex had seven hundred and fifty altars. The motivation for Akhenaten (see next footnote)
to build this city was probably to escape the powerful priesthood of Amon-Re in Thebes (Negev & Gibson
2001:154-155). Amon-Re (also known as Amon-Ra) was worshipped as fertility god at Thebes in Upper Egypt.
When Amon became the national god during the second millennium, his name was fused with that of Re, the
supreme solar deity. By this fusion hidden powers were conferred on him to create the gods (Willis 1993:39).
136
Pharaoh Amenhotep IV took on the name Akhenaten early in his reign (1350-1334 BC). His promotion of
the cult of the sun-disc Aten to supreme status in the Egyptian religion led in a new period in the Egyptian his-
tory. See Excursus 4 for a discussion of the Akhenaten monotheism. He, furthermore, introduced a new art style
in this period known as the Amarna Age, or Amarna Interlude (Clayton 1994:120). Akhenaten means literally:
"it is pleasing to Aten" (Negev & Gibson 2001:154).
35
temple. 137 Among the texts in the archive were official diplomatic letters138 sent by the phar-
aohs Amenophis III,139 Amenophis IV140 and Tutankhamun. 141 These letters, written in Ak-
kadian – the economic and diplomatic lingua franca of the Ancient Near East – were Egyp-
tian correspondence with Palestinian vassals, as well as – among others – Babylonian and As-
syrian rulers.142 Although written in cuneiform, the letters often reflect the local Canaanite
dialect,143 and seem to describe circumstances just before the events as recounted in the books
of Joshua and Judges.144 Many of the letters received in the Amarna "Foreign Office" were
from minor chieftains under attack from Egypt's enemies. 145 They promised continued loy-
alty to the Egyptian crown for as long as gold and other supplies could be sent to them. The
Egyptian king, however, was far too involved in the explication of his new religion, to heed
any of these requests.146 Correspondence between Egypt and the rulers of the great powers
indicated their equal status in contrast to the letters to the vassals in which the pharaoh pro-
claims that he is their lord. Apart from information on international relations during this pe-
riod, these letters 'give insight into the structure of the Egyptian empire in Palestine' at the
time.147 'The Amarna tablets rank first among archaeological finds bearing on the topology
and history of the biblical lands in the latter half of the second millennium BC.' 148
Many letters are fragmentary, disclosing neither the origin nor name of the correspondent. In
some instances the whereabouts of a city is either disputed by scholars or unknown. A cen-
tury of research clarified some of these problems. A new approach by mineralogical and
chemical analysis of these clay tablets identifies, and thus resolves, the geographic prove-
nance.149 The Canaanite city Megiddo was mentioned for the first time in the annals of
137
In 1887 Egyptian peasants discovered these tablets in the ruins of el-Amarna (Lambdin 1962:532).
138
The majority of the three hundred and eighty-two el-Amarna documents were letters (Arnold & Beyer
2002:166).
139
Also known as Amenhotep III, dated 1386-1349 BC (Clayton 1994:112).
140
Also known as Amenhotep IV or Akhenaten, dated 1350-1334 BC (Clayton 1994:120).
141
Dated 1334-1325 BC (Clayton 1994:128).
142
The correspondence furthermore included letters to independent states, such as Hatti, Mittani and Alashiya, as
well as to rulers of city-states – under Egyptian jurisdiction – inter alia, Damascus, Byblos, Acco, Hazor, She-
chem, Megiddo, Gezer, Ashkelon and Jerusalem (Goren et al 2002:196).
143
Negev & Gibson 2001:154-155.
144
145
The Egyptian empire in the Syrian area was rapidly weakening (Clayton 1994:126).
146
Clayton 1994:126. Akhenaten and his Aten religion.
147
148
Lambdin 1962:532.
149
Goren et al 2002:196-197. The examination of a number of letters disclosed that the tablets, in most cases,
were not made from Nile clays normally used in standard pottery production. Mineralogical and palaeontologi-
cal analysis indicated that the clay corresponds with the Esna shales of Upper Egypt. Petrographic and chemical
analyses have been applied to four Alashiya letters from Amarna, as well as to a letter, presumably to the king of
Ugarit from the king of Alashiya. The investigation indicates that the fourteenth to thirteenth century BC politi-
cal centre of Alashiya should be sought in southern Cyprus. The development of a new technique, Scattered
Petrographic Analysis, facilitates the appropriation of a smaller sample size (Goren et al 2002:197-198, 201);
36
Thutmosis III.150 The importance of this city during the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC
is apparent in the Amarna Letters, as well as from evidence of the Taanach tablets. 151 It is
listed as one of the cities not conquered by the Israelites. 152 Accounts from the Amarna Let-
ters imply that Late Bronze Canaan comprised of independent city-states, essentially using
chariotry to defend themselves. 153 These letters furthermore disclose significant social and
political turmoil in these city-states,154 as well as political fragmentation. Due to the absence
of a "territorial defence system", the Canaanites made no effort to prevent the Israelites from
crossing the Jordan.155
The name habiru156 figures prominently in the Amarna texts.157 In a letter158 to the king,
Abdi-Heba mentions 'why do you love the Apiru but hate the mayors? … . The Apiru has
plundered all the lands of the king,' and in another letter159 written by the same person: ' …
who have given the land of the king to the Apiru.' 160 The name habiru161 was given in the
second millennium BC by some of the influential nations in the Ancient Near East – such as
the Assyrians – to a group of nomads in pursuit of new territories where they could settle.
They were mainly mercenaries or labourers and were never considered to be citizens of their
new countries. During the first half of the fifteenth century BC there were numerous habiru
settlers in Syria and Palestine. In the Amarna Letters kings of city-states accused each other
of commissioning the habiru as mercenaries, thereby rebelling against the pharaoh. 162 Being
propertyless and rootless, without any legal status, the habiru stood outside the social order.
According to the Amarna Letters, they were mostly involved in military pursuits. They were
'unruly, disruptive elements operating in Canaan, which contributed to destabilizing the social
order'.163 They have been, furthermore, described as 'uprooted individuals of varied origins,
palaeontology is the study of fossils (Wehmeier 2005:1051). Palaeography is the study of ancient writing sys-
tems (Deist 1990:182). Petrography is the scientific description of the composition and formation of rocks;
analysis of mud-brick, plaster, metals (Negev & Gibson 2001:391).
150
Thutmosis III ruled during the Eighteenth Dynasty in Egypt; he is dated 1504-1450 BC (Clayton 1994:104).
He defeated a Canaanite army in 1468 BC near Megiddo (Negev & Gibson 2001:327).
151
See § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach", for archaeological finds at Taanach.
152
Negev & Gibson 2001:327. Judges 1:27.
153
Zevit 2001:95.
154
Gottwald 1993:170.
155
Malamat 1982:28.
156
Also written as ‛apiru.
157
Newman 1985:171.
158
Amarna Letter 286 (Arnold & Beyer 2002:166-167).
159
Amarna Letter 287 (Arnold & Beyer 2002:167).
160
Arnold & Beyer 2002:166-167.
161
See also § 2.4.
162
163
Newman 1985:171.
37
without tribal or family ties, who joined in bands which could be hired as soldiers by organ-
ized states, or acted on their own.'164 This portrayal of the activities of the habiru in Canaan
supports the social revolt concept as expounded mainly by Mendenhall and Gottwald. 165
Mendenhall furthermore identifies the biblical Hebrews with the habiru, and postulates the
emergence of Israel from movements – such as the habiru – being unified ca 1200 BC under
the patronage of the Yahweh faith. 166 Ramsey167 notes that scholars have frequently chal-
lenged Mendenhall's simple equalisation of the Israelites and habiru and is of the opinion that
such identification is untenable.
According to Bezuidenhout,168 the habiru were marginalised groups who operated from inside
as well as from outside Canaan. Some scholars surmise a possible semantic link between the
words habiru and yrb[ (Hebrew), as well as a connection between the habiru and the estab-
lishment of an Israelite nation. Should such intimation be justifiable, the contents of the
Amarna Letters – referring to habiru – are markedly significant. In the light of my hypothesis
and proposal that marginal groups played a prominent role in the development of the Yahwis-
tic faith, Mendenhall's identification could be reconsidered.
2.6 Egyptian records

In Papyrus Anastasi VI 169 the earliest known reference to the land Edom is recorded. 170 The
inhabitants were called the Shasu171 tribes of Edom.172 The Hebrew Bible refers to Edom ei-
ther as a country or to the Edomites in an ethnic sense. 173 The name Edom means red re-
gion174 and probably alludes to the red Nubian sandstone, 175 a remarkable characteristic of
164
Ramsey 1981:90.
165
See § 7.4 for a brief discussion of the different settlement hypotheses.
166
Ramsey 1981:90-91.
167
Ramsey 1981:96.
168
Bezuidenhout 1996:594.
169
Papyrus Anastasi VI is 'one of four unique scribal exercises compiled in a single papyrus' (Hallo & Younger
2002:16). Although the "opening protocol" of the papyrus alludes to the reign of Seti II, the regal year men-
tioned therein was probably that of his predecessor Merenptah (see § 2.7) (Hallo & Younger 2002:16). Seti II is
dated 1199-1193 BC (Clayton 1994:156).
170
The letter mentions the arrival of the Shasu tribes and their flocks at one of the Egyptian border fortresses
which had been constructed during the Ramesside Period: '4.13 Another information for my lord that we have
just let the Shasu tribes of Edom pass the Fortress of Merneptah-hetephermaat, … in order to revive themselves
and revive their flocks from the great life force of Pharaoh, … .' (Hallo & Younger 2002:16-17).
171
Also known as Shosu.
172
Bartlett 1989:37-38.
173
Reference to Edom as a country: 2 Samuel 8:14; 1 Kings 11:15; Jeremiah 40:11; in a derived ethnic sense:
Genesis 36:1, 8, 19; Numbers 20:18-21; 2 Kings 8:20, 22; Amos 1:11; denoting both land and people: Ezekiel
25:12-14.
174
Cohen 1962b:24.
175
Vicinity of the remarkable Nabatean "rose-red" city Petra, which is built in the red rock formation. The earli-
est mention of the Nabateans (312 BC) goes back to the Hellenistic Period (Negev & Gibson 2001:384).
38
southern Edom and partly of northern Edom. 176 Additional Egyptian evidence from
Ramesses II 177 and Ramesses III178 connects the "land of the Shosu" and Mount Seir. 179 Dur-
ing the early fourteenth century BC, Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem writes to the pharaoh referring to
the "lands of Seir".180 These three passages refer to "Seir", without mentioning Edom. Al-
though the aforementioned Egyptian evidence nowhere identifies Edom with Seir, it is appar-
ent that both regions are peopled by Shasu. However, a link between Edom and Seir is based
on a strong tradition which is probably earlier than the connection between Esau and Edom. 181
The Hebrew Bible frequently links the two regions. 182 A deliberate editorial link might have
been created between Seir and Esau. 183
According to De Moor,184 the word Shosu – which is attested in Ugaritic – means robber, but
it does not imply that all Shosu were bandits. He furthermore indicates that they resembled
the habiru185 in many aspects and it is thus unlikely that these terms refer to different groups.
Attacks by twelfth century BC habiru in Canaanite city-states contributed to their collapse.
The warriors of Yahweh were marauding bands of habiru who went out to raid 'when the
thunder resounded over the mountains'. 186 Zevit 187 observes that the Shasu were unruly peo-
ple, disrupting the peaceful mountain regions of Canaan. They were identified as coming
forth from Edom in southern Transjordan. According to Egyptian sources, they were wide-
spread – south into the Egyptian region and northwards to the Mesopotamian borders. The
assumption that some of the Shasu had moved into Transjordan would account for the
176
Bartlett 1989:38.
177
During the thirteenth century BC pharaoh Ramesses II [1279-1212 BC] was described as 'a fierce raging lion,
who has laid waste to the land of the Shosu, who has plundered Mount Seir with his valiant arm' (Bartlett
1989:41-42).
178
In the twelfth century BC Ramesses III [1182-1151 BC] boasts that 'I brought about the destruction of Seir
among the Shosu tribes. I laid waste their tents with their people, their belongings, and likewise their cattle
without number' (ANET3 262) (Bartlett 1989:42).
179
Seir, meaning "rough" and "hairy", describes the wooded eastern slopes of the Wadi ‛Araba (Bartlett
1989:41).
180
Amarna Letter 88 mentions: 'The land of the king is lost; in its entirety it is taken from me; there is war
against me, as far as the lands of Seir (and) as far as Gath-carmel! All the governors are at peace, but there is
war against me' (ANET3 488) (Bartlett 1989:41).
181
Bartlett 1989:41-42, 178.
182
For example: Numbers 24:18; Judges 5:4.
183
Esau's descendants are listed in Genesis 36. The same wording is used in connection with the sons born from
Esau's wives Adah and Basemath (Gn 36:10-13). Different wording describes the descendants born from his
wife Oholibamah (Gn 36:14). Oholibamah was the daughter of Anah (Gn 36:25), the son of Seir the Horite (Gn
36:20). This could, therefore, be an intentional editorial link (Bartlett 1989:89).
184
De Moor 1997:117, 123.
185
See § 2.4 and § 2.5.
186
De Moor 1997:177. Joel 2:11; Psalm 29.
187
Zevit 2001:118.
39
persistently preserved Israelite traditions regarding their foreign origin. 188 De Moor189 agrees
that many habiru and Shasu probably crossed the Jordan River.
During the twelfth century BC drought and consequential famine in parts of western Asia
ended Egyptian political domination. International trade dwindled while Aegean and Anato-
lian people moved to the South. As a result thereof Canaanites, Shasu and other groups
moved into the central highlands and Judean hills. Traditional kin-based groups settled in
small isolated villages. The central highlands later became the centre of the Israelite Monar-
chy. Although the Hebrew Bible claims that a large part of the Galilee belonged to the Israel-
ites, the question remains whether these groups could be described as Israelites. 190 The
Shasu, fully integrated into the Canaanite culture, possessed gold, silver and precious stones
which they presented as a tribute to the Egyptian supreme deity, Amun-Re.191 The Proto-
Israelites were part of the despised groups of Shasu and habiru. They served the city rulers in
Bashan192 as manual labourers, cattle breeders and mercenaries. 193 Besides Papyrus Anastasi
VI referring to Shasu as pastoralists, Israelite traditions also describe their Late Bronze ances-
tors as pastoralists.194 While it is normally difficult to find archaeological "traces" of semi-
nomadism, several such remains have been left in the Negeb and Sinai. 195 Archaeological
data, as well as extra-biblical literature, all indicate that the early Israelite community was a
heterogeneous group, probably including habiru who later 'became Israelites for ideological
reasons'.196 This Israelite community comprised of groups like peasant farmers, refugees
from Canaanite city-states and adventurers of many sorts. These groups may have incorpo-
rated a few pastoral nomads, such as the Shasu-Bedouins from southern Transjordan and
some escapees from Egypt. It was, presumably, displaced Canaanites who eventually called
themselves Israelites. 197
It is significant that the Shasu is placed in southern Transjordan, specifically with reference to
Seir and Edom. The Topographical List of Amenhotep III198 provides the earliest evidence
188
Examples of the foreign origin of the Israelites: Genesis 17:8; 19:9; 23:4; Exodus 2:22 (Zevit 2001:118).
189
De Moor 1997:120.
190
Nakhai 2003:140-141.
191
De Moor 1997:70, 177. Attested as early as Seti I (1294-1279 BC).
192
Region east of the Jordan River, bounded by Mount Hermon in the north.
193
De Moor 1997:370.
194
Zevit 2001:118. Genesis 13:5-7; 24:34-35; 29:9-10; 31:4; 37:12-14.
195
Zevit 2001:91.
196
Dever 1997a:40.
197
Dever 1997a:40.
198
The Topographical List from Soleb in Nubia is dated early fourteenth century BC (Nakhai 2003:141).
Amenhotep III is dated 1386-1349 BC (Clayton 1994:112).
40
for the god Yahweh, noting "Yhw in the land of the Shasu". 199 In this list Yahweh is linked
with these nomadic people. The origin of Yahweh worship must thus be searched for among
the Shasu of Edom – a major component of later Israel – as early as the end of the fifteenth
century BC.200 Hasel, 201 however, indicates that it is not conclusive that the topographical
reference "Land of the Shasu" refers to a city, region or mountain.
2.7 Merenptah's inscriptions and reliefs

Inscriptions accompanying the reliefs on the wall at Karnak 202 as well as those on a "Victory
Stele", include cartouches203 containing the name of Pharaoh Merenptah. 204 He was one of the
rulers of the Nineteenth Dynasty (1293-1185 BC) of the New Kingdom (1570-1070 BC). He
succeeded his powerful and successful long-reigning father Ramesses II.205 Merenptah's206
199
See § 4.3.4 for a discussion on the implications of the reference to Yhw.
200
Nakhai 2003:141.
201
Hasel 2003:29.
202
The modern town of Luxor – situated on the east bank of the Nile – is adjoined by the ancient village of Kar-
nak and other localities, which form the site of Thebes, the southern capital of Egypt during the New Kingdom
[1570-1070 BC] (Aldred 1998:35).
203
The ancient Egyptian kings had an elaborate titulary, consisting of their names, titles and epithets. As from
the Old Kingdom [from 2686 BC] onwards, each king had five names. Three of these names were common on
monuments and comprised the king's "Horus" name and the praenomen and nomen in the cartouche, a typical
oblong name-ring with rounded corners, indicating a royal name. The praenomen – or first cartouche-name – is
assigned to the king on his accession, followed by the title "king of dualities", referring to his rule over Upper
and Lower Egypt. The nomen – or second cartouche-name – is the king's own name and might be common to
other members of the dynasty. The nomen is typically introduced by the title "son of Re", thus referring to the
king as the heir of the sun god Re (Collier & Manley 2003:20).
204
Merenptah is often read as Merneptah. The name means "Beloved of Ptah". Hieroglyphic signs do not indi-
cate vowels and the name could, therefore, be read either way. Yurco (1990:24), who studied the inscriptions
extensively, is of the opinion that the first reading (Merenptah) is the more likely vocalisation. The original car-
touche of Pharaoh Merenptah had been usurped – entailing partial erasing and recarving with the name, or names
of subsequent pharaohs. By efficaciously identifying the sequence of usurpation, Yurco (1990:25) succeeded to
discover the original cartouche of Merenptah. This cartouche had been erased – by hammering out – and re-
carved by Amenmesse (1202-1199 BC). In turn, the latter's cartouche was usurped by Seti II (1199-1193 BC).
The usurpation process comprised the shaving and then scoring – to create a roughness – of the previous car-
touche to enhance the retention of the coat of plaster on which the next cartouche could be carved. The conceal-
ing plaster often deteriorated in the course of time, leaving visible traces of the previous carving beneath it and
thus, fortunately, failing to completely erase the earlier cartouches. Being more deeply engraved than the subse-
quent names, the surviving signs from the first cartouches of Merenptah are more abundant and perceptible.
Consequently, the very technique of usurpation is often to the advantage of the archaeologist (Yurco 1990:24-
25). See Yurco (1990:25) for a discussion of the cartouches of Merenptah, Amenmesse and Seti II. A sword
from Ugarit inscribed with a cartouche containing Merenptah's name, has been excavated. Being the last of the
strong pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty, he ousted the Libyans from the western Delta region (Fritz 1987:87).
205
Also known as "Ramesses the Great". During his reign of sixty-seven years everything was done on a grand
scale. He ruled from 1279-1212 BC. He constructed more temples and erected more obelisks and colossal stat-
ues than any other pharaoh. During the early years of his reign he was forced to mobilise his army against a Hit-
tite revolt. He gathered twenty thousand men in four divisions – named after the gods Amun, Re, Ptah and Seth
– which was one of the greatest forces of Egyptian troops ever seen. According to tradition, the Hebrews of the
biblical Exodus lived during the last number of years in Egypt under Ramesses II. He carried on with the hard
labour practices of his predecessor Seti I and had the Hebrews work on the construction of the new temples and
the massive city of Piramesse. The biblical events described in Exodus have not been corroborated by ancient
Egyptian records (Clayton 1994:146-147, 150-151).
206
His birth name is Mer-en-ptah (or Mer-ne-ptah), while his throne name is Ba-en-re Mery-netjeru, meaning
"The Soul of Re, Beloved of the Gods"; he ruled 1212-1202 BC (Clayton 1994:156).
41
reign of only ten years is documented by three momentous inscriptions: on the great Victory
Stele discovered in 1896 in his ruined mortuary temple at Thebes, on a wall at Karnak in the
temple of Amun and on a large stele from Athribis in the Delta. All three relate to his military
campaigns.207
The Victory Stele, also known as the Merenptah or Israel Stele, contains the oldest known
written reference to Israel. Inscribed ca 1207 BC, most of the hieroglyphic text on this black
granite monolith celebrates Merenptah's victory over the Libyans and their allies, the Sea
Peoples.208 It furthermore alludes to, inter alia, Canaan that had been plundered. 209 Scholars
agree that the passage on the stele mentioning the Canaanite cities and the people of Israel is
formulated as a poem.210 The reference to Israel in the text initially led scholars to identify
Merenptah as the pharaoh of the Exodus. 211 It has, furthermore, been used as an argument for
a thirteenth century BC exodus and conquest. Since the nation Israel was eventually com-
posed of several groups, it is not possible to know to which of these groups the inscription
refers.212 Although there was a recognisable entity Israel in the land of Canaan at that time, it
207
Clayton 1994:98, 156.
208
Scholars argue that the collapse of the great Hittite Empire in Anatolia and the Mycenaean Empire in Greece
brought about mass migrations to the coastal regions of Cyprus and the Levant. These "Sea Peoples" played a
pivotal role in the late second millennium BC in the social, religious and economic development of the Mediter-
ranean civilisation, as well as in the disintegration of these Bronze Age peoples. The Philistines are one of the
better-known groups of the "Sea Peoples". They are regarded as having been 'bearers of the highly developed
"Western" civilization' (Oren 2000:xvii).
209
Rainey 1991:58.
210
'The Great Ones are prostrate, saying "Peace" (ša-la-ma);
No one raises his head among the Nine Bows;
Plundered is Thehenu, Khatti is at Peace;
Canaan is plundered with every evil;
Ashkelon is conquered;
Gezer is seized; Yano‛am is made non-existent;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more;
Kharu has become a widow because of Egypt;
All lands together are at peace;
Any who roamed have been subdued;' (Rainey 2001:63).
'by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt,
Banere-meramum,
son of Re, Merneptah, content with
MAAT,
given life like Re every day' (Arnold & Beyer 2002:160).
The name Israel appears after Yano‛am – the latter being identified with Tell El‛Abeidiyeh south of Chinereth –
and should, therefore, be east of the Jordan River (Weinfeld 1988:327). The Egyptian god Re (or Ra) was the
great solar deity of Heliopolis (city of the sun) and creator of the universe. He had many forms and names, the
most important probably being the falcon-headed god wearing a solar disc. He was born with each dawn and
died at sunset. In the Old Kingdom the pharaohs claimed to be sons of Re (Barrett 1992:116, 118, 120-121).
The divine order in the creation was personified by the daughter of the sun god, the goddess Maat. She symbol-
ised justice, truth and harmony (Willis 1993:38).
211
Clayton 1994:157.
212
Ramsey 1981:72-73.
42
does not automatically support the "Conquest model" for Israel's entry into Canaan. 213 If this
inscription pertains to a settlement of Israelite tribes in the Succoth Valley, 214 as has been
suggested by some scholars, this could indicate that the name "Israel" was secured in the first
tribal federation of Israel which was settled on the east bank of the Jordan River. 215 However,
should the names Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno‛am be mentioned in geographical order, it
would imply that Israel was somewhere in northern Canaan and presupposes a much earlier
date for the exodus.216 The specific reference to Israel confirms that they had already been
settled in Palestine and were a group that had to be reckoned with. 217 Lemche218 deduces that
this was a particular tribal alliance – probably consisting of the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh and
Benjamin – called by the name Israel, supporting each other and operating as a united front.
Dever219 indicates that the inscription on the Victory Stele has been dated conclusively to ca
1207 BC. The word "Israel" on the stele is preceded by the Egyptian determinative sign 220 for
"people" and not for "nation" or "state". This implies that ca 1207 BC there were a people
called Israel in Canaan. The question is who these Israelites were. Arnold and Beyer 221 con-
clude that near the end of the long inscription Merenptah refers to a campaign – probably a
separate one – against Egypt's traditional enemies in Syria-Palestine. Israel – indicated as a
"people-group" – is mentioned in the list of conquered groups. This inscription gives an indi-
cation that the presence of "Israel" in Syria-Palestine during the late thirteenth century BC
was acknowledged by the Egyptians, but not as an established political state. Fritz 222 agrees
that the Merenptah Stele 'provides [an] indisputable definition of Israel as a people'. The ref-
erence to Israel lies between the names Kn‛n (Canaan) and Hr – the former depicting the area
controlled by Gaza and the latter the northern part of Palestine. A campaign by Merenptah
against the three cities mentioned on the stele – Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno‛am – has,
213
Drinkard 1998:183. Conquest model: see § 7.4.
214
Succoth, meaning "booths", was a city of Gad, situated in eastern Palestine close to the Jordan Valley. The
name "Succoth" is, according to tradition, derived from the booths Jacob made for his livestock when he was on
his way back from Paddan-Aram (Gn 33:17). The name could also refer to a place in Canaan where the harvest
festival was observed. The site has been identified as Tell Deir ‛Alla, close to the Jabbok River. Consistent with
tradition Penuel, close to Succoth, was the place where Jacob struggled with the "angel" and had his name
changed (Gn 32:24-30) (Cohen 1962d:449).
215
Weinfeld 1988:327.
216
Bezuidenhout 1996:593.
217
Le Roux, M 1994:316.
218
Lemche 1988:103.
219
Dever 1997a:43.
220
Determinatives are hieroglyphic meaning-signs. They are placed at the end of a word after the sound-signs.
Determinatives cannot be transliterated since they do not contribute to the sound of a word. The most common
determinative is the sign for a papyrus roll which was used for abstract words or concepts (Collier & Manley
2003:5-6).
221
222
Fritz 1987:99.
43
however, been disputed. Whether the campaign took place or not is of no consequence, since
the "victory song" 'proves the existence of a group of people known as Israel in Canaan at the
end of the Late Bronze Age'. 223 Finkelstein224 points out that it is a 'shaky argument' to as-
sume that reference to a group called "Israel" indicates that the Israelites were well estab-
lished by the end of the thirteenth century BC. The inscription on the stele gives no indication
to the geographical position or size of this group. Halpern 225 mentions that some scholars are
'bent on denying the existence of a kin-based Israel in the central hills in the late thirteenth
century' BC, while Hasel226 affirms that the stele identifies Israel as a socio-ethnic entity with-
in Canaan, and – according to information from the Hebrew Bible – most scholars place Israel
in the central hill country.
History is influenced by phenomena such as climatic or geographic conditions, economic and

social trends, as well as an historical event. The victory over a people called Israel – which
has been archaeologically confirmed – affords evidence for an event.227 Apart from the
Amarna tablets, the Merenptah Stele provides the most important extra-biblical text referring
to an entity called "Israel". This external naming of Israel is valuable for the chronology of it s
appearance in Canaan.228 Lemche,229 however, indicates that, although probable, it is still
questionable whether the group "Israel" mentioned in the stele has any connection with the
habiru. Aside from the above-mentioned, the next known extra-biblical reference to Israel is
during the ninth century BC, and the first known mentioning of Judah appears in an eighth
century BC document.230
During the second millennium BC the eradication of subsistence sources was common mili-
tary tactic by the Egyptian, Canaanite, Hittite and Assyrian armies. In the light of this cus-
tomary practice by the enemy, the question is whether the Egyptian scribe referred to Israel's
223
Fritz 1987:99.
224
Finkelstein 1997:222.
225
Halpern 1997:335.
226
Hasel 2003:29.
227
Brandfon 1988:55.
228
Gottwald 1993:170.
229
Lemche 1988:103.
230
Gelinas 1995:229. Israel is mentioned in the description of the mid-ninth century BC battle of Qarqar on the
Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III; a text of Tiglath-pileser III, dated 734-733 BC, refers to Judah (Gelinas
1995:229). Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC) represents one of the rulers who laid the foundations of the Neo-
Assyrian Empire. He was the first Assyrian king to come in contact with the kings of Israel (Oppenheim
1962b:305). Tiglath-pileser III was king of Assyria (745-727 BC), and later – under the rare Assyrian name
Pūlu – king of Babylonia. There are a few references to him in the Masoretic Text: 2 Kings 15:19, 29; 1 Chroni-
cles 5:6; 2 Chronicles 28:20 (Oppenheim 1962c:641).
44
agricultural produce or its offspring. 231 Hasel232 hypothesises that in the late thirteenth cen-
tury BC Israel had already operated as a sedentary-ethnic and agriculture-based entity. The
term prt, "seed", on the Merenptah Stele was originally translated and interpreted as an agri-
cultural element. This noun could be defined as "fruit, seed" with reference to planting, but
also in the sense of "offspring, posterity". Although the Egyptians did not apply the verb fkt,
"to lay waste" [fields and harvest], in this specific context, prt in the inscription does not refer
to human beings.233 The destruction or appropriation of grain or other life subsistence sources
was a problem that occurred frequently and can be illustrated, inter alia, by the detailed Assyr-
ian description of the 'destruction of trees, fruit trees, grain, and other life subsistence sources
of the enemy'. 234
According to Rainey, 235 the origin of Israel could be determined by references on the Karnak
reliefs236 to the "land of Shasu".237 This Egyptian geographical designation alludes to pastoral
nomads from Transjordan who hypothetically migrated into the central hill country.
Rainey238 acknowledges the 'brilliant piece of detective work' by Yurco 239 in his analysing of
the wall-reliefs at Karnak, but differs from the latter's interpretation of certain figures depicted
in the one scene as being Israelites and not Canaanites. 240 Rainey241 connects the Israelites
with the pastoral Shasu in other wall-reliefs. He argues, in concurrence with other scholars,
that the Shasu should be identified with the early Israelites. This does not, however, imply
231
'Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more' (Rainey 2001:63). See earlier footnote in this paragraph.
232
Hasel 2003:19-20, 22.
233
For a detailed lexical and contextual discussion of the passage referring to Israel on the Merenptah Stele, see
Hasel (2003:20-26).
234
Hasel 2003:25-26.
235
Rainey 2001:68-69.
236
The dynastic god Amun-Re benefited mainly from the enthusiastic building projects of the Egyptians. Every
monarch dedicated statues and sanctuaries to him in the great dynastic temple of Karnak in Thebes. Despite
intensive archaeological excavations, large parts of Karnak have not been uncovered (Charles-Picard 1983:220).
While the inscriptions on the Merenptah Stele are devoted to the defeat of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples by
Merenptah, the extensive hieroglyphic inscriptions in the famous Karnak temple accompany a set of battle reliefs
that illustrate the Canaanite campaign of Merenptah. These reliefs are on the partially destroyed western wall,
known as the Cour de la Cachette. The oldest known depiction of Israelites is among portrayals on the reliefs.
The temple of Karnak was under construction for more than two thousand years (Yurco 1990:21-22). For a de-
tailed discussion of Merenptah's campaign depicted on the Karnak reliefs, see Yurco (1990:21-26), Rainey
(2001:68-74) and Hasel (2003:27-36).
237
The Shasu [or Shosu] [see § 2.6] who appear on a number of the reliefs on the Karnak wall, were a "semi-
nomadic, Bedouin-type people," who roamed Canaan and the Sinai. One of these reliefs depicts the Shasu as
prisoners marched off to Egypt. True to convention, the enemies of Egypt were represented diminutively
(Rainey 1991:56).
238
Rainey 1991:56.
239
Yurco 1990:21-26.
240
Yurco (1990:22) identifies scene 4 as the 'oldest known visual portrayal of Israelites', while Rainey (1991:56)
disagrees and mentions that this specific scene depicts typical Canaanite soldiers in ankle-length clothes using
Canaanite chariots. The Israelites had no chariots and it is totally unlikely that they used borrowed Canaanite
chariots.
241
Rainey 1991:56. Shasu: see also § 2.6.
45
that all Shasu were Israelites; groups, such as the Amalekites, Ammonites and Moabites
might have had origins among the Shasu. In response to Rainey, Yurco 242 defends his point
of view and states that, to his mind, some Israelites amalgamated with the Canaanite society.
He indicates that his identification of the enemies – carved by Egyptian sculptors in Canaanite
dress – as Israelites is more convincing than the latter being identified with the Shasu. While
Rainey243 contends that the Merenptah Stele and Karnak reliefs signify a link between Israel
and the Shasu, Hasel244 argues that the Egyptian reliefs should be evaluated objectively and
independently 'on the basis of a much broader contextual perspective of Egyptian convention
in narrative art and iconography'. Rainey245 concludes that the ancient Israelites probably mi-
grated from Transjordan to Cisjordan, being one of the many Shasu-groups roving to find bet-
ter livelihood areas. The reference to "Israel" in the Merenptah-inscription is, however, no
proof for the existence of a Late Bronze Age twelve-tribe league.
2.8 Ras Shamra tablets: Ugarit

In 1929, excavations started on the remains of the ancient city Ugarit in northern Syria ident i-
fied at Ras Shamra.246 The site is situated near a small harbour on the Mediterranean, known
as Minet el-Beida or "White Harbour", due to the whiteness of the rocks at the entrance of the
harbour. Artefacts uncovered disclosed the cosmopolitan nature of this ancient city. Among
the various objects found, was a statuette of a god subsequently identified as a figure repre-
senting the Canaanite deity Ba‛al.247 In 1931 the identity of the ancient city was confirmed.
A tablet recovered on the site contained the phrase "Niqmaddu, king of Ugarit", and as several
other tablets also mentioned the word "Ugarit", it was concluded that Ras Shamra was the site
of the ancient city of Ugarit notably known from references in the Tell el-Amarna Letters.248
Little is known about this Early Bronze and Middle Bronze Age city. Few architectural re-
mains of these periods have been uncovered and cannot be safely dated due to a major
242
Yurco 1991:61.
243
Rainey 1991:56.
244
Hasel 2003:29.
245
Rainey 2001:74-75.
246
An accidental discovery in 1928 disclosed a royal necropolis. On closer examination several stone slabs were
uncovered, revealing a tomb vault containing a number of small artefacts. An initial survey of the immediate
vicinity by the excavation team revealed traces of occupation from the Neolithic Period through to the Roman
Period within a relatively small radius of Ras Shamra (Curtis 1985:18). The Neolithic Period is dated 8500-4500
BC (Negev & Gibson 2001:556). The Roman Empire was established by Emperor Augustus 27 BC and divided
by Theodosius AD 395 into the Western and Eastern Empire (Oxford University Press 1987:1468).
247
See § 3.5.
248
Curtis 1985:18-20, 26. Tell el-Amarna Letters: diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian courts and
the rulers of vassal states in the Asian section of the Egyptian Empire; ca 1375-1366 BC (Lambdin 1962:529,
531). See § 2.5.
46
earthquake, probably during the late fourteenth century BC. Fortunately, abundant Akkadian
and Ugaritic tablets – all dating between the fifteenth and twelfth centuries BC – wherein the
history of the Late Bronze Age city of Ugarit has been well documented, have been discov-
ered. According to information from these cuneiform archives, the kingdom of Ugarit ex-
tended for ca 2000 km². Built in close proximity to the sea and harbour, the city had easy ac-
cess to imported exotic and luxury goods, such as the Egyptian stone vases that have been un-
covered.249 Many ancient texts refer to trade with merchants from the Euphrates Valley and
Mesopotamia. Ugarit became a great commercial centre and a key location on the route from
Asia Minor to the Aegean islands and Egypt. Huge fortunes had an effect on the technical
and cultural development of the city. 250 A mild climate and abundant rains advanced the
growth of olives, vines and cereals. 251
Shortly after excavations started, the first tablets were found, written in a hitherto unknown
cuneiform writing. The thirty signs were not Akkadian, but revealed an alphabetical script. 252
Due to the similarity between the Ugaritic and Mesopotamian texts – in general form and
function – scholars assumed that the Ugaritic readings are translations of unattested Akkadian
originals. Pardee, 253 however, noticed very few Akkadian loan words in the Ugaritic lan-
guage and no specific links with Mesopotamian texts. He concludes that an old West Semitic
tradition is reflected in the Ugaritic texts. Kapelrud254 indicates that the uncovering of these
tablets led to the discovery of a complete library of hundreds more, some of which had been
used for teaching and practising, probably in a scribes' school housed in the library. In addi-
tion to the Akkadian documents and Horite dictionaries, Ugaritic is of great significance for
the research on the development of the Canaanite script and literature. Although belonging to
the Canaanite family, the cuneiform alphabetic and consonant script is closer to biblical He-
brew. Epic songs that praise the deeds of gods and heroes are incorporated into the Ugaritic
literature. Both in context and language, these epics and the biblical literature have much in
common.255 The Ugaritic texts evince certain cultural similarities with early Israelite material
and provide some background regarding the development of the Israelite religion. Current
249
Caubet 2000:35-36.
250
251
Caubet 2000:36.
252
This Ugaritic alphabet was probably written in the fourteenth century BC and is thus the oldest known alpha-
bet in the world (Kapelrud 1962c:728).
253
Pardee 2001:233.
254
Kapelrud 1962c:725-726, 729.
255
47
discussions concerning ancient evidence employ the term "Canaanite" in connection with lan-
guage and language classification as well as with the research on cultures. 256
The yield of the tablets has an enormous value for the study of the Phoenician and Canaanite
religion. 257 They contain substantial segments of legendary narratives, as well as mythologi-
cal and ritual texts. There is a possibility that these mythologies were either common to the
cultures of Syria-Palestine, or that they were imported into Ugarit from some Syro-Palestinian
centre. It seems that the cult of the storm god Ba‛al258 entered Palestine and Phoenicia from
outside the area, replacing the indigenous cult of El, the chief god of the pantheon. The Uga-
ritic texts refer to El and the goddess Asherah as the owners of heaven and earth.259
Asherah,260 referred to as Athirat in the texts, frequently appears as consort of El. She is also
named ’Elat, the feminine form of El.261 Prior to the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, the He-
brew Bible was considered the leading authority on the Canaanite religion. Biblical scholar-
ship assumed that the Israelite tribes were confronted with an alien and evil culture. Biblical
narratives often refer to "foreign gods" – Ba‛al, Asherah, Shemesh and some others – which
Judah and Israel were not to worship. 262 The Hebrew Bible, furthermore, represents the god-
dess Asherah as a deity, a green tree and tree trunks – Asherim – often placed beside
twbcm.263 Various passages in the Hebrew Bible demonstrate that the Israelite prophets were
well acquainted with fertility myths and took advantage of this knowledge in their prophetic
teachings.264 Although the cult and myths of Late Bronze Ugarit and Tyre 265 may be con-
nected to that of Late Bronze Canaan, it was not identical. Yet, according to historiographical
material, Tyre was the major source of Canaanite religious influence on Israel. 266 The major-
ity of the Ugaritic texts are of mythological character, furnishing new information on the re-
ligion of Syria and Canaan in the first half of the second millennium BC. These texts, as well
256
Smith 2002:21, 27.
257
Kapelrud 1962c:725.
258
The city housed, inter alia, two large temples for the gods Ba‛al and Dagon, respectively (Curtis 1985:26).
259
Handy 1994:20-22, 76.
260
See discussion on Asherah in § 3.2.
261
Hestrin 1991:52.
262
Handy 1994:37, 41.
263
twbcm – transcribed as – were standing stones in cult places; 2 Chronicles 31:1 (Hestrin 1991:52).
See § 2.14.1.
264
The prophet Hosea is an example of speaking frequently in terms familiar to his audience; in Hosea 5:13-6:3
we have a depiction of the dying and rising god (Williams 1935:245-246).
265
The Greeks were the first people to refer to the country of the Canaanites as Phoenicia, and as early as ca
1200 BC these two terms were synonymous. A direct translation of the word "Canaan" means "land of purple".
Tyre was one of the few good harbours of Phoenicia and an important training and industrial centre with a signif-
icant industry based on a purple dye derived from molluscs (Kapelrud 1962b:800-801).
266
Zevit 2001:120.
48
as several artefacts found at Ras Shamra, give intimations about the cult practised in Ugarit
and environs.267
At a later stage of the excavations, historical texts were found in the royal palaces. These give
exact dates and details about the last centuries of Ugarit's history. During the reign of
Niqmaddu II,268 or that of his predecessor, a great disaster befell the city. According to exca-
vators, an earthquake and tidal wave struck the city, followed by a fire, all of which destroyed
or seriously damaged buildings.269 Excavations carried out in 1973 unearthed a new thir-
teenth century BC archive. More than three hundred tablets and fragments were later discov-
ered. Although these finds did not bring forth significant new knowledge, important aspects
were corroborated. Demanding Hittite overlords – despite their weakening – attributed to the
growing unruliness of Ugarit. Furthermore, the area was caught in a famine. Apart from
these texts giving dramatic descriptions of an "impending catastrophe", documents from Emar
– a kingdom on the south-eastern frontier of the Hittite Empire – also describe the gradual de-
terioration of the city. 270 At the end of the thirteenth century BC and the beginning of the
twelfth, Ugarit was invaded by the warlike "Sea Peoples" 271 responsible for the city's destruct-
ion. At the dawn of the Iron Age, the invasion by the iron-wielding Sea Peoples was sym-
bolic of the city's economic decline in the important manufacture of bronze tools and weap-
ons. Although the history of Ugarit ends in the twelfth century BC, isolated discoveries indi-
cate later occupations of the site. 272
2.9 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud

The site, also known as Horvat Teman, is situated on a mound in the valley of Wadi Qurayyat
in the north-eastern region of Sinai, approximately fifty kilometres south of Kadesh-barnea.273
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud274 is close to important crossroads, leading from Kadesh-barnea in the north
to Elath in the south. The east-west route follows the dry riverbed of Wadi Qurayyat.275 Al-
though the two buildings on the site could be interpreted as a fortress, they differ from other
267
Kapelrud 1962c:725-726, 729.
268
Mid-fourteenth century BC (Curtis 1985:43).
269
Curtis 1985:43.
270
Singer 2000:21-24.
271
Also known as Philistines; they seemed to have travelled from the north, both by land and sea, progressing
along the east Mediterranean coast (Curtis 1985:47-48). See footnote in § 2.7 on, inter alia, Sea Peoples and
Philistines.
272
Curtis 1985:47-48.
273
Negev & Gibson 2001:286. Kadesh-barnea, just south of the Israelite border, is an important oasis – identi-
fied with Ain el-Qudeirat – in the Wilderness of Zin (Negev & Gibson 2001:276).
274
The meaning of the Arab name is "solitary hill of wells" (Scheffler 2000:100).
275
Scheffler 2000:100.
49
Negeb fortresses, and had no apparent military function.276 It was, furthermore, thought to be
a wayside shrine for travellers to leave their offerings. Apparently, however, it served as a
caravanserai. 277 As the site was inhabited only for a brief period, it is possible to date it pre-
cisely to the eighth century BC. The pottery discovered at the site dates to ca 800 BC. 278
Fragments of inscriptions on wall-plaster in Phoenician script were found. There is a signifi-

cant similarity between these inscriptions and the ink-on-plaster wall-inscriptions found at a
shrine at Tell Deir ‛Alla, 279 mentioning Balaam the seer. Deir ‛Alla is relevant to Kuntillet
‛Ajrud therein that the 'formally scripted mythological inscriptions' at the shrine is a clear in-
dication that the wall-inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud should not be judged as casual graffiti,
but should be interpreted within its context. 280 The eastern entrance to the building had at
some stage been decorated with linear and flora frescoes. The most dramatic of these discov-
eries, however, were two pithoi, 281 densely covered with drawings and inscriptions, mainly in
red ink. Neutron activation analysis 282 indicated that the pottery was not a product of local
clay, but of clay from Judah or the coast, or even as far as the northern parts of Israel. 283 Ac-
cording to Zevit,284 the pithoi were manufactured in the Jerusalem area, but the inscriptions
and drawings added at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud. Scheffler285 mentions that there is no doubt 'from the
handwriting, style and superimposition of writings and drawings that many hands had been at
work at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud'. Peckham286 is of the opinion that these "eclectic dedications" might
have been left by Tyrian merchants.
276
Zevit 2001:370. Dever (2005:160) interprets it as a 'typical Iron Age Judean desert fort guarded by a small
permanent force', at the same time serving as an inn. On the site there is also an indisputable "gate shrine".
277
Caravanserai: an unfurnished inn where caravans could stay over (Scheffler 2000:100). Caravans consisted
of a group of people – often merchants – travelling together. The ass was the local form of transport. The camel
– which was less common – only came into use ca 1000 BC. It was important to travel together, especially
through dangerous territory (McCullough 1962:536).
278
Scheffler 2000:100.
279
Tell Deir ‛Alla is a prominent mound in the Jordan Valley, slightly north-east of the junction of the Jabbok
and Jordan rivers. Identified by scholars as the biblical Succoth (see § 2.7 – footnote on Succoth Valley) (Negev
& Gibson 2001:138). The territory is associated with the tribe of Gad (Zevit 2001:370).
280
Zevit 2001:370-371.
281
Pithoi are large pottery containers or storage vessels; those found at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud are each one metre high,
weighing approximately thirteen kilograms; pithos is the singular form of pithoi (North 1989:120).
282
Neutron activation analysis: identification of elements, especially trace elements, in a sample by studying
characteristic gamma rays (short-wavelength electromagnetic rays) emitted by the sample after irradiation with
high-energy neutrons (electrically neutral elementary subatomic particles).
283
North 1989:120.
284
Zevit 2001:381. For a detailed discussion of the site and finds discovered there, see Zevit (2001:370-405).
285
Scheffler 2000:101.
286
Peckham 2001:23.
50
Many debates followed since the sensational discovery of the inscriptions on the two pithoi.
Pithos A has on both sides a "collage" of miscellaneous drawings, separate letters and a writ-
ten benediction:
'may you be blessed by Yahweh
of Shomron [Samaria] and his Asherah'. 287
Pithos B has incomplete animal drawings and a group of five human figures, with raised
hands, supposedly in veneration. A second inscription on a pithos reads:
'Amaryo said: Tell my lord, may you be well
and be blessed by Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah.
May he bless and keep you and be with you.'288
This storage jar was probably placed at the gate as a votive.289 The various painted scenes on
the pithoi picture humans or divine figures and illustrate familiar fertility motifs. 290
2.10 Khirbet ’el-Qom

An inscription on a pillar of a burial cave close to Khirbet ’el-Qom291 is dated ca 725 BC.292
This cave is a typical Judean "bench tomb" from the eighth century BC. On the engraving is a
distinctively carved human hand, resembling the much later Islamic "Hand of Fatima". 293
This sign is a kind of graffito which was written on amulets, walls and over doorways. The
open, outstretched hand is a symbol of "good luck" to ward off the "evil eye". The ’el-Qom-
hand is undoubtedly Israelite. The hand-symbol and "blessing formula" on the carving
should, in all likelihood, be ascribed to the same person, wishing prosperity from "the hand of
Yahweh". It concurs with the "hand of blessing" in the Hebrew Bible. 294
Although there are linguistic difficulties, the inscription should probably read:
'For ’Uriyahu the governor (or the rich), his inscription.
Blessed is ’Uriyahu by Yahweh:
From his enemies he has been saved
287
Scheffler 2000:102.
288
Scheffler 2000:105.
289
Dever 2005:128.
290
Mayes 1997:61. See § 4.3.9 for a discussion of the implication for research on the Israelite religion of these
inscriptions, which refer to Yahweh and his Asherah – seemingly indicating Asherah to be his consort.
291
Identified with biblical Makkedah, approximately ten kilometres south-east of Lachish (Zevit 2001:359).
Joshua 10:10, 16-17, 21, 28-29; 12:16; 15:41.
292
Zevit 2001:359.
293
Known as Hamza. It is seen everywhere in the Muslim world (Dever 2005:132).
294
Dever 2005:131-133. Examples are: 2 Chronicles 20:6; 30:12; Ezra 7:6, 28; 8:31; Nehemiah 2:8; Psalms
16:11; 63:8; 80:17.
51
By his a/Asherah.
(Written) by ‛Oniyahu' 295
Palaeographic difficulties were encountered with the deciphering of this legend. In the initial
preparation of the surface for the inscription, by the writer, vertical grooves formed which
could be read as parts of letters. Furthermore, the inscriber thereof did not apply the same
pressure when carving the letters, resulting in well-defined, as well as blended letters. Other
letters were later traced over some of the original ones. 296
2.11 Khirbet Beit Lei

On the eastern slope of the hill of Khirbet Beit Lei an ancient burial cave was uncovered dur-
ing 1961. 297 Apart from a rectangular antechamber, the cave consists of two burial chambers,
each with three benches, the latter being characteristic of pre-exilic burial caves.298 Human
bones and a ring, earring and plaque of bronze were found on the benches. Fragments of
earthenware vessels were uncovered outside the cave. The variety of graffiti discovered on
the walls of the antechamber distinguishes this cave from other Iron Age caves. Apart from a
number of drawings on the walls, inscriptions in the old Hebrew script were also found. The
drawings include a man holding a type of lyre, a praying figure and a third figure wherein the
man's dress and headgear is emphasised. Schematically drawn ships were an unusual fea-
ture,299 and were probably related to religious activities. 300
The three main inscriptions have been palaeographically examined. Although engraved by a
person with a reasonably good handwriting, all the letters were not carefully written and can
be considered to be graffiti. These inscriptions concern biblical scholars and the proposed
reading by Naveh301 of some lines is as follows:
Inscription A: 'Yahveh (is) the God of the whole earth;
the mountains of Judah belong to him,
to the God of Jerusalem.'
295
Dever 2005:131-132.
296
Zevit 2001:360-361. For a detailed discussion of this inscription, see Zevit (2001:360-370) and North
(1989:124-127). The reference to Yahweh and to his Asherah in the above inscription is discussed in § 4.3.10.
297
The cave lies close to and east of Lachish, north-east of Tell Beit Mirsim and not far north-west from Hebron.
The area is best defined as being on the western slope of the Judean ranges (Naveh 1963:74).
298
Numerous parallels of this type of burial chamber have been found at Beth Shemesh, a few at Lachish and a
single cave at Tell en-Nasbeh (Naveh 1963:74). For a detailed description of the cave and drawings, see Naveh
(1963:81-87) and Zevit (2001:405-438).
299
It is unlikely that inhabitants of this region had any fishing or seafaring association (Naveh 1963:78).
300
Naveh 1963:74-78.
301
Naveh 1963:81-87.
52
Inscription B: 'The (Mount of) Moriah Thou hast formed,
the dwelling of Yah, Yahveh.'
Inscription C: '[Ya]hveh deliver (us)!'
To characterise ancient Hebrew script, monumental inscriptions or ostraca written in ink by

scribes are employed. Therefore, in the case of the Beit Lei graffiti – being different from
comparable material – precise chronological conclusions cannot easily be drawn. The letter-
forms differ considerably from each other, and different styles of handwriting can be distin-
guished. However, scholars conclude that the inscriptions in the burial cave were made over
a short period of time. 302 Parallel biblical phrases are dated post-exilic. To date the inscrip-
tions on an historical basis shall, therefore, only be hypothetical. 303 Naveh304 concludes that
the script should not be dated later than the sixth century BC. He, furthermore, states that 'the
contents of the inscriptions are obviously religious', and that the burial cave was possibly the
property of a family of Levite singers. 305 The drawing, portraying two boats in the water, is
'reminiscent of Egyptian barques on which gods were transported'. 306 These boats are signifi-
cant considering the curse in Deuteronomy 28:68.307 Zevit 308 resolves that the inscriptions
clearly indicate 'that YHWH was a most important deity, but not necessarily' the only god.
The appellation 'God of Jerusalem' (inscription A), obviously refers to Yahweh who dwells in
Zion. Yahweh is a universal God, but at the same time the national God of Israel. This per-
ception could have been particularly stressed when the country – with the exception of Jerusa-
lem – was subjugated by hostile forces. The inscriptions would therefore be well suited at the
time when Sennacherib conquered forty-six Judean fortified cities and eventually kept Heze-
kiah besieged in Jerusalem. 309 After Sennacherib's return to Assyria, there was a widespread
302
Naveh 1963:87-88.
303
Extra-biblical parallels have been found in a monumental inscription of the Royal Steward and some graffiti
from Gibeon. These were dated ca 700 BC and the sixth century BC, respectively (Naveh 1963:87-88). The
only known burial caves with similar architectonic features to Beit Lei are in the Silwan necropolis west of Jeru-
salem. These tombs include that of the Royal Steward Silwan, dated eighth to seventh century BC (Zevit
2001:405-406).
304
Naveh 1963:89-90.
305
Naveh (1963:89-90) draws this conclusion on the basis of the contents of the drawings: a man with a lyre, a
praying figure and a man with headgear that could be priestly or Levitic.
306
Zevit 2001:433.
307
Deuteronomy 28:68: 'And the LORD [Yahweh] will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I prom-
ised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and
female slaves; but there will be no buyer.'
308
Zevit 2001:436.
309
Sennacherib, king of Assyria and Babylonia (705-681 BC) invaded Palestine during 701 BC. This campaign
is well documented in Assyrian sources, as well as being supplemented by the biblical record (2 Ki 18:13-19:37;
2 Chr 32:1-22; Is 36-37). Jerusalem was miraculously saved when the Assyrian army inexplicably withdrew,
returning home.
53
belief that Jerusalem would always be saved. All three inscriptions obviously have a religious
content – the first two in poetic rhythm, while the third is the expression of a simple prayer. 310
2.12 Ketef Hinnom

During excavations carried out by Gabriel Barkay at Ketef Hinnom 311 two of the 'most impor-
tant archaeological finds to date [2004], shedding light on the Bible', were recovered during
1979.312 Two silver plaques, specified as Ketef Hinnom I and II, were discovered containing
an alternate version of the well-known Priestly Benediction of Numbers 6:24-26.313 This is
the earliest citation found of texts that also appear in the Hebrew Bible. As the plaques obvi-
ously functioned as amulets, the purpose of the inscriptions was probably apotropaic. 314
Dever315 is of the opinion that the amulet was presumably worn around a woman's neck316
and, therefore, would have been a cherished belonging. In reality it was thus an analogue
form of the phylactery. 317 While Barkay and others318 dated the inscriptions to the seventh
century BC there were different readings by scholars dating them to the sixth century BC and
even proposing an extreme date during the Hellenistic Period. 319 Proper decipherment of the
inscriptions was initially not possible, even with the best technology available at that stage.
With the aid of better photographic and computer-imaging technology, as well as high-
resolution digital imagery, the enhanced images revealed traces of letters that were not previ-
ously identified, as well as a clarification of certain letters. Scholars suggesting a date during
310
Naveh 1963:89-92.
311
Ketef Hinnom is the site of an Iron Age cemetery above the Hinnom Valley south-west of the Old City of
Jerusalem. Large quantities of pottery finds, dated from the seventh century BC to 586 BC were, inter alia, ex-
cavated at the location (Negev & Gibson 2001:282-283).
312
Barkay et al 2004:41.
313
Numbers 6:24-26: 'The LORD [Yahweh] bless you and keep you;
the LORD [Yahweh] make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the LORD [Yahweh] lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.'
Ketef Hinnom version (Dever 2005:130):
'May Yahweh bless you
and watch over you
May Yahweh make his
face shine upon you
And grant you peace.'
314
Barkay et al 2004:41-42. Apotropaism is the belief that ritual acts, incantations or amulets can ward off evil
(Deist 1990:18).
315
Dever 2005:131.
316
The rolled up amulet was meant to be worn around a neck on a thong. The amulet was probably buried with
a woman, judging from the collection of jewellery. It seems thus, that sophisticated people, close to the religious
capital Jerusalem, were superstitious in the Monarchical Period (Dever 2005:130-131).
317
The phylactery was 'a small box containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages', which was either at-
tached to the doorpost of a house, or worn by the owner (Dever 2005:131).
318
Barkay et al 2004:41-42.
319
332-63 BC.
54
the Hasmonean Period,320 misunderstood the stratigraphy321 of the burial repository – where
the plaques were found – and drew conclusions on the basis of several Hellenistic objects dis-
covered near the opening of the repository. 322
The plaques are very small and the letters difficult to see as they are scratched onto the silver
and not written in ink.323 These inscriptions were not meant to be seen again after they had
been written. They had the same intention as the inscriptions in the hzwzm324 and the !ylpt;325
their function thus being amulets protecting the wearers against evil in the presence of holi-
ness. It was, likewise, probably a scribe who wrote the miniscule letters on the precious metal
surface for apotropaic purposes. 326 Waaler327 observes that as both amulets contain the same
text, it is a sure intimation that this text must have been meaningful and standardised at the
period of inscription. The inscriptions are an indication of an earlier "continuous written tra-
dition." After revised palaeographic observations, Barkay and others328 conclude 'that there
are no forms in these inscriptions that point toward a postexilic, much less a Hellenistic date'.
In the final analysis, Barkay and others 329 reiterate the general consensus reached by scholars
'that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of biblical
texts', and thus furnish biblical research with the earliest examples of confessional statements
regarding Yahweh. 330
320
142-37 BC.
321
Stratigraphy is 'one of the major interpretative principles of field archaeology, borrowed from geology' (Ken-
yon 1987:185). One deposit layer of debris overlies another, accumulating from the bottom to the top. Numer-
ous factors can contribute to the disturbance of any orderly sequence of deposit, such as earthquakes, burrowing
animals and interference by man. The various layers of debris are called "levels" or "strata" (Kenyon 1987:185).
322
Barkay et al 2004:43-44. The stratigraphy of a burial repository differs totally from the stratigraphic layers of
an occupational site. On a tell these layers are often separated by destruction debris and are deposited on top of
each other, while in a burial repository dating is done according to where the objects are found in the repository.
For further explanation hereof, see Barkay et al (2004:43-44).
323
The two scrolls are extremely small. The one measures 27 x 97 mm and the other 11 x 39,2 mm. The letters
average 5 mm and 3,5 mm in height, respectively. The individual letter strokes are, furthermore, only the width
of a hair and lightly scratched. Numerous peripheral scratches complicate the distinguishing of letterforms
(Barkay et al 2003:163).
324
hzwzm (mezuzah) is the Hebrew word normally translated with door or doorpost. The word was used for door-
posts – which were sacred – at a local sanctuary. Passages of scripture were attached to the doorposts in a con-
tainer (hzwzm) (Henton Davies 1962a:368).
325
!ylpt (tephillin) are small receptacles, containing some verses of scripture. It was bound on the forehead and
arm during prayer. In New Testament times the Greek word meant "amulet" or "means of protection" (Henton
Davies 1962b:808).
326
327
Waaler 2002:44, 53.
328
Barkay et al 2004:52. For a palaeographic summary and a new analysis of the letters on the amulets, see
Barkay et al (2003:163-170) and Barkay et al (2004:47-52).
329
330
55
2.13 Relevant archaeological artefacts
The following finds – which are only briefly discussed – are merely a few relevant archaeo-
logical artefacts.
Taanach
Excavators at Taanach – a large tell on the southern periphery of the Jezreel Valley – argue
that this Iron I site was populated by Canaanites, while some scholars propose that, even at
such an early date, these inhabitants could be considered Israelites. 331 Twelve clay tablets
found at Taanach furnish information regarding social patterns in the fifteenth century BC
Canaan and, furthermore, complete knowledge acquired from the el-Amarna Letters.332 Simi-
lar tablets were found at, inter alia, Gezer, Jericho and Megiddo.333 These tablets are in-
scribed in a 'Palestinian variant of the Canaanite cuneiform alphabet' 334 and, therefore, proba-
bly reflect the dialect of southern Canaan by the end of the Late Bronze Age. At that stage,
certain major linguistic adjustments were discernable in the Canaanite language. 335 Despite a
changing Egyptian pattern of trade with Palestine, 336 city-states prospered as seen in massive
fortifications, such as at Taanach. 337 However, as from the eleventh century BC through to
the Persian Period, this city exhibited a recurring pattern of abandonment and occupation. 338
During 1902 the first cult stand339 was excavated at Taanach, followed by the discovery of a
second, similar stand in 1968. 340 The cult stands have a quadrangular shape, hollow on the
inside. The top has a raised rim on four edges, adorned with a line of knobs on the outside.
The front is decorated with figures. 341 These lavishly decorated terracotta stands are the most
331
332
See § 2.5 regarding these letters. Albright (1944:14) mentions that these tablets belong to the same stratum
where an Egyptian amphora and alabaster were discovered. It is dated to the fifteenth century BC. See Albright
(1944:16-27) for a translation of inscriptions on these tablets. Stratum (plural: strata) is one of the layers of de-
bris that has been deposited on top of another. See also § 2.12: footnote on stratigraphy. Amphora is a vessel
which was used to transport wine and oil over distances (Negev & Gibson 2001:557).
333
334
Cross 1968:41.
335
Cross 1968:41-42.
336
Egypt increasingly favoured the trade route by sea, resulting in the relinquishing of the overland caravan
routes and sites, with the effect of a dwindling trade between Egypt and Palestine during Early Bronze III (Rich-
ard 1987:31).
337
Richard 1987:31, 33.
338
Lapp 1969:4-5.
339
Cult stand: a structure consisting of a number of tiers without a horizontal separation (Beck 1994:356).
340
Lapp 1969:42. The first stand was discovered in 1902 by E Sellin. During 1968, an expedition – directed by
P Lapp – discovered a pit which was presumably part of the 1902 excavation. This pit nearly destroyed a well-
constructed cistern shaft as bedrock collapsed into the cistern. Pieces of the broken second cult stand were
pressed into a soft silt layer. Despite the damage done by the collapsed bedrock and the poorly-fired clay it was
made of, the stand was still in a remarkably preserved condition (Lapp 1969:42).
341
Similar figurative ornamentation on cult stands have been discovered at, inter alia, Tel Ashdod, Tel Beit
Shean, Tel Megiddo and Jerusalem (Vriezen 2001:71-72).
56
impressive objects discovered in the "cultic structure area".342 Dever343 disagrees with the
typifying of the area as a "cultic structure" and states that it was more likely a hmb344 than an
elementary household shrine.345 Zevit 346 indicates that although the excavated construction
and most of its contents suggest that it was either a domestic or an industrial building – and
not a cultic structure as previously propounded – the two elaborate cult stands support a pro-
posal of a cultic building somewhere in the common area; Hestrin 347 likewise assumes that the
stands represent a building.
Figure 1 Figure 2
Taanach cult stand; front view Taanach cult stand; side view
348
(Hestrin 1987:62) (Hestrin 1987:63)
342
Rast 1994:356. The motifs on these stands are comparable with Ancient Near Eastern parallels in art and
literature. The pottery-group identified in the cult stand resembles pottery found in North Palestine, dating to the
tenth century BC (Rast 1994:356, 360).
343
Dever 2005:151, 154.
344
hmb (bāmâ): high place. See § 2.14.1.
345
'The monumentality of the large offering stands, and especially the mould for mass-producing figurines, sug-
gest that the Ta‛anach "Cultic Structure" was a bāmāh serving the public, even though it lacks some expected
features such as standing stones and altars' (Dever 2005:154).
346
Zevit 2001:237.
347
Hestrin 1987:71.
348
Available in the public domain at: www.matrifocus.com/IMB04/spotlight.htm.
57
Figures 1 and 2 represent the second stand excavated in 1968. This stand is unique for its
elaborate iconography and is almost completely preserved. 349 The stand is fifty-four centime-
tres high and divided into four registers or tiers. In each tier the bodies of a pair of animals, or
composite figures, appear in relief on the sides; the heads and legs are depicted on the front of
the stand.
A nude female with raised hands, flanked by two lions, appears on the first – bottom – tier.
She has a large head with a hairdo which extends the frame of the tier, making her taller and
thus creating the impression that she is more important.350 The female figure is crudely
shaped; the breasts are prominent and the outstretched arms touch the ears of the lions. It is
not clear whether the ends of the hairdo were meant to be curled. The lions are roughly
shaped with no sign of a mane, thus obviously meant to represent lionesses. Naked goddesses
with lions are known from Egypt and Palestine. 351 Ackerman352 mentions that a nude female
between two lions is most likely a portrayal of Asherah, known as the "Lion Lady" in West
Semitic mythology. Her other major symbol, the sacred tree, is also depicted on the stand –
on the third tier. Kenyon353 indicates that, although the interpretation of this iconography is
controversial, both this stand and the one excavated earlier are commonly linked to the
mother goddess Asherah.
An open space in the centre of the second register – from the bottom – is flanked by two
sphinxes. These sphinxes are composite creatures incorporating, apart from the lion's body, a
bird's wings and a female head wearing a Hathor wig.354 They symbolise guardians and could
be identified with the biblical cherubs. On the assumption that the cult stand represents a
building, this tier might depict the entrance to a shrine. 355 The most outstanding feature of
both cult stands is the 'pyramid of alternating, superimposed, lions and sphinxes'.356 If these
349
Hestrin 1987:61.
350
Beck 1994:352, 355. The position of the nude female between the lions symbolises the male hero, the master
of animals; a depiction known from fourth and second millennium BC Mesopotamian seal impressions (Beck
1994:364).
351
Hestrin 1987:65, 67. Mesopotamian Ishtar was represented clothed, frequently accompanied by a lion. The
lions symbolised fertility and power of goddesses, such as Ishtar (Hestrin 1987:67-68).
352
Ackerman 1992:190-191.
353
Kenyon 1987:97.
354
The female sphinx appeared in Egypt from the Eighteenth Dynasty [1570-1293 BC] onwards, and as early as
the eighteenth century BC in Syria (Hestrin 1987:71). Hathor was the Egyptian sky goddess and daughter of Re,
the sun god. She represented joy, love, song and dance. The "Eye of Re" took on the form of Hathor, appearing
as the lioness Sekhmet – or the Powerful One – who killed men and women in a massive bloodbath. She is
sometimes portrayed as a celestial cow (Storm 2001:38). She is depicted with a distinctive headdress with a sun-
disc and horns (Barrett 1992:58-59).
355
Hestrin 1987:71.
356
Beck 1994:356. This type of configuration is known only from the Anatolian world. Animals alone, or ani-
mals with composite creatures, appear in similar compositions on Cappadocian seals (Beck 1994:356).
58
stands could be linked to the Israelites – as has been pointed out by Finkelstein357 – the ques-
tion arises whether the vacant space in the centre of this register represents Yahweh, the "in-
visible" Deity, posed between two cherubim. In a Yahwistic context no representation of the
Deity between features personifying that Deity, would have been appropriate. 358 Mettinger359
indicates that, according to the Decalogue commandment, 360 the Israelite worship had to be
exclusively aniconic; thus, 'no iconic representation of the deity (anthropomorphic or therio-
morphic) serving as the dominant or central cultic symbol', 361 was permitted. The vacant
space of the Taanach cult stand may thus symbolise "sacred emptiness" or "empty-space ani-
conism". Taylor 362 denotes that the space in this register could 'hardly be other than an icono-
graphic representation of Yahweh of Hosts' – this would be the first and only occurrence
known in the archaeological record. Zevit 363 mentions that the sphinxes were presumably as-
sociated with Yahweh.
The third tier – second from the top – represents a sacred tree with two ibexes 364 on their hind
legs nibbling at the upper branches. Two lionesses – almost identical to those in the bottom
register – flank this group. According to Hestrin, 365 the sacred tree – that provided nourish-
ment and gave life – represented the goddess ’Elat, or Ugaritic Athirat – the biblical Asherah.
Taylor366 mentions that scholars generally agree that the deity Asherah is depicted in the bot-
tom and the third bottom registers. An association between Yahweh and Asherah could there-
fore be suggested by the Taanach cult stand; similar connections appear in inscriptions, as
discussed in paragraphs 2.9, 2.10, 4.3.9 and 4.3.10.
The top tier – regarded as the most complex – comprises different elements: an animal figure
in the centre, suggested by Hestrin367 and some other scholars to be a calf or a young bull; a
winged sun-disc flanked by two free-standing voluted columns; underneath each one of these
columns a small griffin, 368 visible only from the side. Scholars who suggest that the animal is
357
358
Taylor 1988:560-561.
359
Mettinger 1997:219-221.
360
Exodus 20:4.
361
Mettinger 1997:220-221. See also footnote in § 1.2, and references to aniconism in § 2.14.2 and in Excur-
sus 1.
362
Taylor1988:561.
363
Zevit 2001:322-324.
364
See footnote in § 2.13, subtitle "Lachish ewer".
365
Hestrin 1987:65, 68, 74. See also discussion in § 2.13, subtitle "Lachish ewer".
366
Taylor 1988:560, 565.
367
Hestrin 1987:74.
368
Griffin: see description in footnote in § 3.4.
59
a bull, thus link this representation to the storm god Ba‛al.369 Taylor370 indicates that scholars
debate the question whether the animal is a young bull or an equid. He consulted experts in
animal biology who are of the opinion that 'the animal, though crudely fashioned, may be rea-
sonably judged to be an equine and not a bovine'.371 Taylor, 372 furthermore, points out that
scholars tend to overlook the striking parallel in 2 Kings 23:11. 373 According to Hestrin,374
however, the top tier 'shows the young bull representing Ba‛al, together with his symbols and
attributes. Thus the stand was intended for worship of Ba‛al and Asherah, probably in a
shrine at Ta‛anach'. Glueck,375 likewise, interprets the winged sun-disc as a symbol of Ba‛al,
and consequently associates this deity to the nude female figure being the goddess Asherah,
his consort. Numerous descriptions and references in the Hebrew Bible portray Yahweh as a
solar deity; a winged sun-disc therefore also being his symbol. 376
Taylor377 denotes that the pillars in the top tier, as well as the flanking lions and cherubim on
the lower registers, suggest architectural features which were characteristic of the Syro-
Palestinian temple architecture. Deities were thus represented by the winged sun-disc, the
sacred tree and the nude female. It seems clear that the deity Yahweh is personified by the
vacant space – second tier from the bottom – as well as 'supposing that tier one is a cultic
scene representing Yahweh'378 The nature of Yahwism in the vicinity of Taanach is portrayed
in Judges 5,379 implying a mythological struggle with Canaanite deities, describing Yahwism
in astral terms; hence linking Yahweh to the winged sun-disc in the top register.
Hadley380 mentions that 'evidence such as the Taanach cultic stands' corroborates the theory –
held by many scholars – that both Israel and Judah worshipped the goddess Asherah as con-
sort of Yahweh during the time of the Monarchy. Taylor 381 agrees that the cult stand – as de-
scribed –'apparently bears witness to yet another cult of Yahweh and Asherah'. He further-
more indicates that such a cult operated – if only indirectly – under royal administrative
369
Hestrin 1987:74-75.
370
Taylor 1988:561-563.
371
Taylor 1988:562-563.
372
Taylor 1988:563.
373
2 Kings 23:11, 'And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to
the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts. And he
burned the chariots of the sun with fire.'
374
Hestrin 1987:77.
375
Glock 1992:290.
376
See discussion in § 3.6 and references in § 3.8.1.
377
Taylor 1988:559-561, 564-566.
378
Taylor 1988:564. See Taylor (1988:563-566) for motivations linking Yahweh to the cult stand.
379
See particularly Judges 5:19-20, 31.
380
Hadley 1997:169.
381
Taylor 1988:566.
60
sanction during Solomon's reign. It seems clear that both Yahweh and Asherah are repre-
sented more than once, which would imply that this cult stand incorporates 'the two earliest
known representations of Yahweh'. 382
Figure 3. Three sides of the Taanach cult stand excavated in 1902.
(Beck 1994:353)383
This cult stand, discovered in 1902 by Sellin, is ninety centimetres in height. The stand is
similar to the one described in the previous paragraphs, but with different characteristics. It is
a five-tiered structure without any horizontal separations. Pairs of winged sphinxes and lions
are depicted on the different tiers, as well as a scene of a man holding a serpent, a stylised
tree, superimposed windows, two volutes and some animals. For a detailed description of the
stand and its adornments, and an analysis of the scenes, see Beck 384 and Hestrin. 385
382
Taylor 1988:560, 566.
383
Available in the public domain at: www.biblelandpictures.com/gallery/gallery.asp?categoryid=60 .
384
Beck 1994:352-381.
385
Hestrin 1987:67-77.
61
Female Figurines
As from the ninth century BC the Israelites venerated at least one – and more likely a few –
goddesses. These were personified by an array of figurines, 386 by both the southern and
northern Israelites.387 Nude female figurines – popularly known as Astartes – have been
found at many Ancient Near Eastern sites. These can be classified as plaque figurines 388 or
pillar figurines. 389 Plaque figurines are divided further into concubine 390 and goddess391 figu-
rines. Available evidence indicates that pillar figurines were part of the household cult and
favoured especially by the Judeans. 392 One of the most significant sources for research on the
Israelite religion – thereby to gain insight into this religion – is plaque and pillar figurines rep-
resenting animate beings.393
Plaque and other figurines were utilised in rituals for different purposes. The dominant fe-
male pillar figurine images could be linked to fertility, or appropriated as low-level interces-
sors to convey petitions to distant powers. They were, furthermore, probably applied for ei-
ther prayer or ritual.394 During the initial stages of archaeological research, these images were
perceived as magical icons; there is, however, 'no archaeological proof that the JPFs 395 are
related to any magic rituals'. 396 They were small enough to be easily concealed. 397 Female
figurines are identified with divine symbols, such as animals, flowers and serpents; they are
linked to celestial activity or regarded as solar goddesses when holding a sun-disc. Similar
386
Zevit (2001:268) distinguishes seven types of figurines, namely
Qadesh type – extended arms, sometimes holding stalks or serpents
Females – crowned or uncrowned; one or both hands holding their breasts; the other hand over the genital region
Nude females – arms hanging down their sides
Archaic types – pierced ears; hands crossed in front of breast
Figurines holding discs
Mother figurines – woman with a child; pregnant woman or supporting breasts and womb
Pillar figurines – a round figure with both hands in front of the breast or holding a serpent.
387
Zevit 2001:271.
388
Plaque figurines were usually processed by pressing a lump of clay into an open mould. A plaque-type figu-
rine is thereby formed in a type of relief. These plaques seem to portray a fertility goddess, hence the term As-
tarte figurines, as she was commonly associated with fertility before the discovery of the Ugaritic texts (see §
2.8) (Hadley 2000:188-189, 196).
389
Pillar figurines were hand moulded in round "body" shapes. These figurines have only been found in con-
texts as from Iron Age II (Hadley 2000:196). Byrne (2004:138-139) subdivides the clay pillar figurines in those
handmade with finger-pinched faces, and those with a head cast from a mould.
390
These figurines were either imported from Egypt, or under Egyptian influence, as they exhibit a striking simi-
larity to the Egyptian statuettes categorised as "people reclining on beds" (Hadley 2000:189).
391
This group depicts a "nude, frontal female figure" with separated legs, often wearing a Hathor-type headdress
and holding lotus plants or snakes (Hadley 2000:191). Hathor: see footnote on sphinxes in § 2.13, subtitle Taa-
nach, as well as footnote on Hathor in § 2.14.1.
392
Hadley 2000:188-189, 191, 196.
393
Zevit 2001:267.
394
Zevit 2001:272, 274.
395
Judean Pillar Figurines.
396
Kletter 2001:201.
397
Zevit 2001:274. Genesis 31:19, 30-35 describes the incident of Rachel taking the household gods.
62
excavated figurines relate to the time of the Monarchy. 398 Images holding their breasts399
were found at Israelite sites as from the ninth century BC, in increasing numbers during the
eighth and seventh centuries, but declining numbers in the sixth century BC. 400 The term
~yprt401 – also known as ~yhla402 – may refer to pillar figurines.
Kletter403 does not agree with the assumption that a "general goddess" – or great cosmic god-
dess – was worshipped by a large number of communities, although there 'may have been
syncretism and influences between different goddesses at different places, or a common ori-
gin in some distant past.' A goddess becomes unique for a society when adopted for particu-
lar circumstances and needs.404 The wide distribution of figurines during the seventh century
BC is an indication of their popularity at that time. Figurine-groups – collectively analogous
to those in Judah – are widely distributed, including Transjordan and Edom, indicating con-
tact between Judah and its eastern neighbours.405 A comparison of finds from so-called
"Edomite sites"406 in Judah and those from Buseirah407 indicates close parallels. A number of
female figurines,408 excavated at Buseirah, 'are similar in form and size to many others from
Iron Age sites all over the southern Levant'. 409 The so-called Ashdoda410 was the most impor-
tant clay figurine in Philistia,411 probably a combination of Canaanite and Aegean traditions.
It does not show any resemblance to Canaanite figurines as such. The Ashdoda probably
398
Figurines holding a sun-disc were excavated at, inter alia, Hazor, Megiddo and Beth Shean – all northern Is-
raelite sites (Zevit 2001:270).
399
The accentuated breasts of the Judean pillar figurines could imply engorgement for lactation purposes, there-
by signifying successful pregnancy (Byrne 2004:142).
400
Zevit 2001:268, 270-271.
401
The ~yprt (teraphim) are small portable idols that could be easily concealed. The paternal household gods
were sought after for religious reasons, as well as for power and property rights. They were used by the Israel-
ites for cultic purposes during the period of the judges (Jdg 17:5; 18:14, 17, 20). The idol mentioned in 1 Sam-
uel 19:13, 16, was shaped as a man (Gordon 1962:574).
402
~yhla: ’ĕlōhîm, the generic term for "gods".
403
Kletter 2001:198.
404
Kletter 2001:198.
405
Prag 2001:226-227.
406
Sites at Horvat Qitmit and ‛Ein Haseva. Horvat Qitmit, south of Tel Arad [in the Negeb], lies on the edge of
Wadi Qatamat; a seventh century BC Edomite shrine has been uncovered at this site, as well as finds including
numerous ceramic figurines (Negev & Gibson 2001:420). ‛Ein Haseva lies approximately forty-five kilometres
south-east of Horvat Qitmit. Both have been characterised as Edomite cult places or shrines (Bienkowski &
Sedman 2001:311, 318).
407
Buseirah in Jordan is identified with biblical Bozrah [Gn 36:33; 1 Chr 1:44; Is 34:6; 63:1; Jr 49:13, 22; Am
1:12]; although referred to as capital of Edom, this is nowhere explicitly stated (Bienkowski & Sedman
2001:310-311).
408
All are naked and pregnant, holding their breasts with both hands (Bienkowski & Sedman 2001:311-312).
409
Bienkowski & Sedman 2001:311-312, 318.
410
Ashdoda: an almost abstract clay female figurine; the body is integrated with the couch upon which she sits
(Mazar 2000:223).
411
Philistia: name of the territory on the southern coast of Palestine occupied by the Philistines – known as the
Sea Peoples. The name Philistia appears in poetic portions of the Hebrew Bible (Ps 60:8; 87:4; Is 14:29). The
Philistine pentapolis consisted of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron (Greenfield 1962:791-792).
63
represents the main deity worshipped by the Philistines and is 'almost the only iconographic
representation of a deity in Philistia'. 412
Fertility figurines – grouped as the "larger artefact family" – emanated in the Ancient Near
East from the Neolithic Period, through the Bronze Age and even to beyond the Iron Age. 413
As pillar figurines were so commonplace, Zevit 414 concludes that they belonged to private in-
dividual cults, rather than to popular communal cults. The distribution of artefacts could,
thus, be linked to the religious history of the Israelites. Daviau 415 mentions that in contrast to
temple and small shrine assemblages – that have been debated and studied extensively – the
customs and artefacts of the domestic cult are not as well-known, but seem to be 'evidence of
religious activities practised by family members in the home'. 416 The god (or goddess) – rep-
resented by a particular image was "born" in heaven, consented to descend into the image,
'thus transubstantiating 417 it. The image as such remains a promise, a potential, and an incen-
tive to a theophany, to a divine presence, no more'.418 Dever419 indicates that 'a symbol is
simply something chosen to represent and typify a large reality' – mostly in the form of a pic-
torial image, or an object. A tangible object enables the individual to give meaning and
power to some 'invisible abstract reality'. 420
Bull figurines and the "Bull Site"

In the hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh421 a twelfth century BC open-air hilltop sanctu-
ary422 was discovered in 1981. The site was probably carefully selected – most of the impor-
tant northern Palestinian mountain ridges423 can be seen from there – bearing in mind the role
high mountains played in Israelite and Canaanite religious ideology. It was utilised for only a
412
Mazar 2000:223. The disparity between archaeological evidence for a female goddess in Philistia and the
biblical text identifying the male god Dagon as the principal deity of the Philistines, could be ascribed to the
absence of figurines in temples, indicating a function mainly in the domestic cult (Mazar 2000:223).
413
Byrne 2004:148.
414
Zevit 2001:270, 273.
415
Daviau 2001:199.
416
Daviau 2001:199.
417
Transubstantiation is a doctrine professing that the substance of bread and wine changes into the substance of
Christ's body when consecrated in the Eucharist (Hanks 1992:504). Consecration does not, however, change the
physical properties of the tokens (Deist 1990:264).
418
Jacobsen 1987:29.
419
Dever 2005:52.
420
Dever 2005:52.
421
The site is on a northern ridge of the Samarian hills. An ancient road connecting the biblical towns Dothan
and Tirzah ran through a long east-west valley which bounds the ridge on the south side (Mazar 1982:32). The
ridge is known as the "ridge of Daharat er Tawila" (Negev & Gibson 2001:94).
422
The description of a hmb (high place) – see footnote in § 2.14.1 – fits this high, open-air cult place. It is a
non-domestic, public place with an altar-type platform and a hbcm (or "standing stone", see § 2.14.1), with
proof of sacrifices (Dever 2005:135-136).
423
Mount Meiron, Mount Tabor, Mount Carmel, Mount Gilboa and Jebel Tamun (Mazar 1982:33).
64
short period of time and, due to strong erosion, almost completely destroyed. A large rectan-
gular hbcm,424 evidences of sacrifices and a fragment of a large ceramic cult object were un-
covered. This isolated cult place could be connected to the settlement of Israelite tribes in the
area, serving as a central place of worship for some of these communities. A few parallels of
similar open-air cult places are found elsewhere in Israel; 425 this site is, however, the earliest
known example that might be attributed to the Israelites. 426 Biblical Shiloh, near Bethel, is an
excavated site contemporary with the "Bull Site"; however, only a typical Iron Age I hill-
country village has been found there and not the central sanctuary as described in 1 Samuel. 427
This site might have had an earlier Canaanite cultic tradition. 428
The figurine of a unique bronze bull in a remarkable good condition was discovered on the
"Bull Site". It is one of the largest bronze figurines 429 found in Israel so far.430 This figurine
is reminiscent of the Canaanite chief deity "Bull El".431 The bull is also known as an attribute
of the Canaanite Ba‛al and was accepted by the Northern Israel tribes as symbol of Yahweh –
as illustrated by Jeroboam's "golden calves" at Dan and Bethel. 432 A similar fourteenth cen-
tury BC bronze bull had been found earlier at Canaanite Hazor.433 Only a small number of
bronze bull figurines are known from the Levant. Of all the different bronze figurines found
at early second millennium BC Byblos, only two depict bulls – not free-standing – but with
striding gods on their backs. Numerous specimens of the bull motif in Syro-Palestinian ico-
nography, from the Middle Bronze Age onward, illustrate the importance thereof. Various
examples elucidate its cultic significance in the Ancient Near East. 434
Mazar435 indicates that the question cannot easily be answered as to the kind of cult that had
been devoted to this place, or to the god worshipped there. However, open-air cult places
424
hbcm ( ): standing stone. See § 2.14.1.
425
Iron Age I cult places at Arad and Hazor; Iron Age II open-air cult place east of Samaria (Mazar 1982:38).
426
Mazar 1982:32-39.
427
1 Samuel 1:3 'Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD
of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the LORD'.
428
Dever 1997a:37.
429
The figurine is 17,5 cm in length and 12,4 cm high (at its maximum); the eyes consist of a depression – for
the inlay of stone or glass – with protruding ridges around it. This type of 'inlayed eye sockets are unknown on
other bronze figurines from the Levant' (Mazar 1982:27). The thin legs, hump on the back and shape of its horns
are known from artistic illustrations from fourth millennium BC Mesopotamia, depicting a Zebu (bos indicus)
which came from India to the Middle East during that time (Mazar 1982:27, 29).
430
Mazar 1982:27.
431
See § 3.7 regarding El.
432
Negev & Gibson 2001:94. See § 2.14.4 for a discussion of Tel Dan. 1 Kings 12:25-29.
433
Dever 2005:136.
434
Mazar 1982:29-30.
435
Mazar 1982:38.
65
were permanent features of the Israelite cult, as from the time of the patriarchs 436 through to
the reform of Josiah.437 The "Bull Site" may thus be taken as an example of an open-air altar
close to a settlement. Hendel438 notes that, in comparison to bordering West Semitic cult
sites, the 'aniconism439 of Yahwistic culture sites is particularly noticeable'. He furthermore
states that, as this bronze bull image 'is analogous to the bull images at Dan and Bethel, … (it)
is more likely to be a pedestal, throne or divine emblem than a tauromorphic 440 image of
Yahweh'. Imagery on Akkadian cylinder seals 441 exhibits the storm god442 – at times por-
trayed standing on a bull443 – with his consort, the naked rain goddess;444 a kneeling god
fights the bull – a symbol of drought. If the bull is defeated it is tantamount to the vanquish-
ing of drought. A seal impression from Mari – ca 1800 BC – combines the appearance of the
naked rain goddess and the killing of the bull. In the Hittite-Hurrian iconography, the "dis-
robing" goddess of rain was persistently identified with the storm god. Naked female figu-
rines in the Ancient Near East – which are often combined with bull figurines – should be dis-
tinguished from the partially nude Ishtar445or Astarte,446 characterised as goddesses of love-
making.447
Horse figurines
The "flying sun" – or winged solar disc – is a well-attested and widely-known symbol of An-
cient Near Eastern religions.448 A wedge or clay disc between the ears of horse figurines has
been identified as a solar disc and interpreted as relating to cults linked with solar or fertility
worship. Equine figurines from Edom are well known. Fragments of horse and rider figu-
rines have also been uncovered. The presence of human and animal figurines in excavated
cult vessels indicates their cultic significance and purpose.449 Two Ammonite "horse and
rider" figurines were found well preserved in the Maqabalian tomb near Amman in Jordan.
436
Genesis 12:7-8; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7.
437
2 Kings 23:1-25.
438
Hendel 1997:218.
439
See footnote on aniconism in § 1.2.
440
Tauromorphic: conceiving Yahweh in the image of a bull.
441
ca 2275-2150 BC (Van Loon 1990:364).
442
Also known as Ba‛al or Adad. See § 3.5.
443
Storm 2001:14.
444
The naked rain goddess – as bringer of rain – is associated with the god of thunder and lightning. Her gar-
ment – interpreted as a rainbow – is often held behind her. The Syrian and Mesopotamian agriculture is almost
totally dependent on rainfall, which is normally accompanied by thunder and mostly by the appearance of a rain-
bow (Van Loon 1990:363-364).
445
See § 3.4.
446
See § 3.3.
447
Van Loon 1990:363-367.
448
Zevit 2001:322. This symbol is often found on seals from Iron Age II Israel and elsewhere (Zevit 2001:322).
449
Bartlett 1989:192-193.
66
Rather than a solar disc or other cult image, the horse's mane appears to be decorated with a
type of harness, and the rider is portrayed with a whip. 450 Figurines from Jerusalem-regions
are often identified with implied biblical references to "the horses of the sun".451 Consensus
has not been reached whether these figurines are depicted with a harness decoration, forelock
or solar disc. 452
Two caves in the vicinity of Jerusalem have been uncovered. The larger cave – just south of
the Temple Mount – yielded numerous late seventh century BC female and zoomorphic figu-
rines, mostly broken. Apart from abundant other finds, twenty-one "horse and rider" figurines
were discovered. There is no indication that this cave was a burial cave, but rather served a
cultic purpose. Dever 453 is of the opinion that it functioned as a hmb.454 Bowls with animal
bones, as well as other objects indicate that the cave was more than a household shrine. Ap-
plying several biblical references 455 to archaeological data relating to this cave, the reform of
Josiah – which has been disclaimed by some scholars – does not seem so absurd. Ba‛al, the
weather god in Canaanite mythology, rode daily in his chariot across the heavens. Horse
figurines could be deemed 'symbols of ba‛al and his heavenly horse-drawn chariot'.456
Dever, 457 however, indicates that he hesitantly suggests that the "horse-and-rider" figurines
from this cave are evidence of Josiah's purge of the cult.
Lachish ewer
The Lachish ewer 458 was discovered in 1934 outside the Lachish459 temple in a depository pit.
It dates to approximately 1220 BC. The iconographic scene on the ewer depicts a stylised
450
Prag 2001:226-228. These types of images were popular in Cyprus from the eighth century BC right up to
the sixth century BC. Aegean and Assyrian influences were noted on these figurines. The horse was probably a
status symbol and the Cypriot riders depicted as armed warriors (Prag 2001:226-227).
451
2 Kings 23:11; Ezekiel 8:16; Nahum 3:17.
452
The numerous horse-and-rider figurines from Jerusalem are related more to archaeologically-attested patterns
of similar objects from Cyprus and Transjordan, than to a biblical description of a horse-and-solar cult (Prag
2001:227).
453
Dever 2005:155-158.
454
For an explanation of hmb, see the relevant footnote in § 2.14.1.
455
"All the host of heaven" (2 Ki 23:4-5); "high places round about Jerusalem" (2 Ki 23:5); "burning incense to
Ba‛al" (2 Ki 23:5); "chariots of the sun" and "horses dedicated to the sun" (2 Ki 23:11). The reference in 2
Kings 23:11 to "horses and chariots of the sun" is clearly an allusion to solar and astral worship, most likely with
a Canaanite origin in the Late Bronze Age, or even with a Phoenician or Neo-Assyrian root (Dever 1994:152).
456
Dever 2005:155, 157. Throughout the second millennium BC, miniature terracotta chariot models – driven
by a deity and drawn by horses or oxen – were well known in Syria. However, only horse figurines have been
preserved from the Iron Age (Dever 1994:152).
457
Dever 2005:157.
458
Ewer: a type of pitcher with a handle (Hestrin 1991:52).
459
Lachish, also known as Tell ed-Duweir (Hestrin 1991:53), was one of the main cities in the Shephelah and
later one of Judah's fortified cities. The earliest Iron Age remains date back to the tenth century BC. Lachish is
named as one of the cities conquered by the Israelites (Jos 10:23, 31-33) (Negev & Gibson 2001:288). The
67
tree composed of a vertical line and three semicircles, representing the Canaanite goddess
Asherah.460 The tree – actually representing a pubic triangle – is fringed by two ibexes461
with long curved horns. The interchangeability of trees and pubic triangles substantiates the
link between the tree symbol462 and the goddess Asherah who is often depicted as a tree or a
tree trunk, representing her attributes of life, revival and growth.463
A rare alphabetic inscription in the old Canaanite script – one of 'the earliest and most signify-
cant Canaanite inscriptions ever discovered'464 – appears on the ewer. The translated inscrip-
tion reads, 'Mattan. An offering to my Lady ’Elat'. ’Elat is the feminine form of El and the
pre-biblical equivalent of ’ašērâ. Mattan is probably the person who made an offering to
’Elat.465 The word "Mattan" can also be translated as "gift". A mutton bone found in the
ewer was probably an oblation to the goddess ’Elat/’ašērâ.466 The Proto-Canaanite alphabet –
a pictographic acrophonic script 467 – was developed in Canaan during the first half of the sec-
ond millennium BC. There were presumably initially twenty-seven pictographs, which were
reduced to twenty-two by the thirteenth century BC. Writing was done in any direction, even
in vertical columns. From the middle of the eleventh century BC the letters were all linear,
written horizontally from right to left. 468 This script, as it has developed, is no longer called
Proto-Canaanite – or Canaanite – but Phoenician. 469
Shephelah or "Lowland" is a region in the foothills between the Judean highlands and the Philistine plain. It is
separated from the highlands by a series of longitudinal valleys (Morton 1962b:324).
460
See § 3.2.
461
Ibexes: wild goats with large horns (Hanks 1992:241).
462
The sacred tree symbol was incorporated from an early period into most Ancient Near Eastern cultural tradi-
tions. From the beginning of the second millennium BC a "highly artificial, stylised" tree was a customary motif
of Assyrian art. The sacred tree between two animals or other figures facing each other was a recurring theme of
religious significance and appears on a variety pottery receptacles from Palestine. Apart from Palestine, illustra-
tions of this tree are also found in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt and some Mediterranean countries (Hestrin
1991:54).
463
Hestrin 1991:52-53. Dever (2005:227) mentions that the pubic triangle has been a 'symbol from time imme-
morial of the source of all human conception, birth, and life'.
464
Hestrin 1991:53.
465
Hestrin 1991:54.
466
Dever 2005:226.
467
Pictographic acrophonic script: different pictures, for example a house ( tyb), the palm of a hand (@k) and
water (~ym), did not represent the specific object, 'but only designated the first consonant of each word', namely
b k m respectively (Naveh 1987:101).
468
The Hebrews adopted the Canaanite script – which was only later employed by the Phoenicians – after the
time of the "conquest" of Canaan. An independent Hebrew script branched off from the Phoenician script during
the middle of the ninth century BC, and an Aramaic script followed about a century later. Therefore, until ca
850 BC the same script was applied for Phoenician, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. This conclusion is drawn on the
basis of a number of late Proto-Canaanite inscriptions, as well as those on, inter alia, the Lachish ewer. It is not-
ed, furthermore, that 'it is a well-known phenomenon that letters tend to develop in similar forms and even to
assimilate to each other' (Naveh 1987:105, 109).
469
Naveh 1987:101-102.
68
Apart from several pottery containers uncovered at the Lachish fosse temple 470 an interesting
decorated goblet was also found. It is illustrated with two ibexes facing each other with a pu-
bic triangle between them, instead of the usual sacred tree. This drawing is repeated four
times. The triangle is traced in red ink and black dots represent the pubic hair. 471 Hestrin472
states 'this interchange of tree with pubic triangle proves, in my opinion, that the tree indeed
symbolizes the fertility goddess, one of the attributes of Asherah'. 473
2.14 Cult sites

2.14.1 Introduction
To worship, forms an integral part of man's being. It is synonymous with paying homage to
living entities or to inanimate or unperceived objects. It embraces piety as well as liturgy. 474
One of the characteristics of Ancient Near Eastern religions is the veneration of ancestors.
Worship is normally expressed in sanctuaries of some kind or other, such as temples built for
the cult of the god or gods, shrines or high places. 475 Temples and shrines of various descrip-
tions have been uncovered in Palestine. Temples were principally the earthly homes of the
gods – their basic need was for a "house".476 Ancient religions exhibited the concept of the
temple being "heaven on earth". 477 For Israel it was a significant place to meet God. A tem-
ple could, furthermore, be regarded as the 'architectural embodiment of the cosmic moun-
tain'.478 At the same time, temples were constructed in such a manner that it could serve as
"places of refuge", should the need arise. 479 Consistent with Ancient Near Eastern belief a
temple could be built only when directed by the god and commensurate with his plan. 480 A
470
Fosse – meaning moat – refers to three temples, superimposed one upon another, in the moat of Lachish. The
moat had gone out of use by the time of the temples (Negev & Gibson 2001:288).
471
Hestrin 1991:54-55.
472
Hestrin 1991:55.
473
Several explicit examples from Egyptian iconography portray sacred trees yielding food and symbolising the
source of life (Hestrin 1991:55).
474
Henton Davies 1962c:879.
475
A high place or hmb can be regarded as a large altar. When an altar of a certain size standing in an uncov-
ered space grew in popularity, it became a hmb. The practice of sacrificial offerings was the only ritual function
performed there (Paul & Dever 1973:61).
476
Saggs 1984:205-206. The earliest Assyrian temples were modest buildings, but later equalled royal palaces
in splendour (Saggs 1984:206).
477
Otzen 1984:199. Both the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures regarded the temple as being of
heavenly origin – the place where heaven and earth united – thereby effecting a close connection between the
heavenly world and the temple (Otzen 1984:199).
478
Lundquist 1983:207. The cosmic mountain symbolises the primordial mound from where the waters emerged
covering the earth during creation. The temple was normally built on a sanctified space that was set apart – often
on a spring – which personified the temple's contact with the primeval waters. Temples constructed with several
staggered levels – ziggurats in Mesopotamia – express an idea of 'a successive ascension toward heaven'
(Lundquist 1983:207-209, 211). See footnote in § 2.4 on "ziggurat". For a detailed discussion on the typology
of a temple, see Lundquist (1983:205-219).
479
Keel 1978:179-180. See also 2 Chronicles 22:11-12.
480
Roberts 1987:40.
69
collection of inscriptions has been found wherein work on the construction of a temple on be-
half of a deity had been recorded.481 Taking literary data into consideration, it seems that
temples in Israel were more common than the general supposition, 482 and that these sanctuar-
ies where the cult of Yahweh was practised, were spread throughout the territories of Israelite
settlement.483
In accordance with a detailed description in Exodus 25-31, a portable tabernacle had to be as-
sembled for Israelite worship in the Wilderness. It took the form of a tent shrine and sur-
rounding court. Traditions maintain that this sanctuary was permanently replaced by the Jeru-
salem Temple. Although the apportionment of the space in the tent shrine corresponds with
the later description of Solomon's Temple, scholars maintain that the depiction of the Taber-
nacle had nothing to do with any actual tent shrine. It was probably later incorporated into the
text to validate the sequential plan of the Jerusalem Temple, and was inspired by the memor y
of this temple. The basis of a tabernacle seemingly came from a Persian background of post-
exilic Judaism. 484 The concept of a tent-dwelling – or tabernacle – for a deity originated un-
der Canaanite influence, as El, the Canaanite high god, resided in a tent shrine. 485 According
to Aharoni, 486 there is a striking similarity between the Arad sanctuary and the Tabernacle,
since the proportions of the latter are identical with those of the sanctuary at Arad. Thus the
description of the Tabernacle affords a connection between this sanctuary and the Solomonic
Temple in Jerusalem. A short Akkadian text from the Mari archives describes the framing of
a large public tent belonging to the heritage of tent constructions of ancient Syrians. In the
Masoretic Text cognate nouns are found of two West Semitic terms in this Mari text, indicat-
ing the presence of a major god.487
In the Timnah Valley large ancient copper mines were discovered at the foot of the mountain
range Zuqe Timnah. 488 In the centre of Timnah's copper industry an Egyptian mining temple
481
Handy 1995:264.
482
Zevit 2001:255.
483
Vriezen 2001:76.
484
Fleming 2000:484-485, 497.
485
Ollenburger 1987:38.
486
Aharoni 1973:4.
487
Fleming 2000:486-489. The West Semitic terms qersum and hurpatum are found in cognate nouns in the
Ugaritic Ba‛al myth and in the Masoretic Text. The hurpatum seems to be indirectly related to both Ugaritic and
Hebrew words for "cloud", insofar as it appears in descriptions of a storm god's presence. A possible relation-
ship is indicated between the Mari qersum and the biblical Hebrew Xrq (Ex 26:15) which refers to the wooden
frame of the priestly Tabernacle. A cognate word appears in the Ugaritic Ba‛al myth in the description of El's
mountain sanctuary. The qersū in the Mari text and 'the tabernacle's qĕrāšîm evidently correspond in form and
function' (Fleming 2000:489-492).
488
The Timnah Valley (Wadi Meneiyeh) is enclosed on the southern, western and northern sides by the Zuqe
Timnah, and lies approximately twenty-four kilometres north of the Gulf of Elath. Copper ore had been
70
– dated fourteenth to twelfth century BC – dedicated to the Egyptian goddess Hathor,489 was
excavated. After the initial destruction of the temple it was reconstructed, showing distinct
Semitic features.490 Parallels of the traditional Israelite sanctuary are found in this temple.491
The indigenous inhabitants – the Midianites, Kenites and Amalekites – with their metallurgi-
cal traditions going way back to prehistoric times, jointly operated the mines and smelters
with the Egyptians. In the light of an Egyptian mining temple in the Arabah during the four-
teenth to twelfth centuries BC, new questions emerge concerning the biblical account of the
exodus.492
Apart from other distinct features at cult sites, standing stones, twbcm,493 have been surveyed
and recorded at numerous places. These irregular arrangements of stones often relate to an
open-air sanctuary and are the most basic type of shrine known. twbcm were objects of ven-
eration and worship, envisaged as the embodiment of an absent god. Although no biblical
twbcm, texts do report on standing stones at a
text explicitly describes the cultic role of the
few sites, such as at Bethel where a local stone was anointed as a hbcm.494 Isaiah 19:19 re-
fers to a hbcm for Yahweh that would be set up near the border of Egypt. Statements about
twbcm "on every high hill and under every green tree" probably imply everywhere. A triad of
twbcm at Dan indicate a triad of deities, while more than one hbcm at Arad implies the
extracted during the Late Chalcolithic Period, from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age I and during the Roman-
Byzantine Period. Until recently these mines were known as "King Solomon's mines". It has now been ascer-
tained that the pharaohs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties (fourteenth to twelfth century BC), and not
the kings of Israel and Judah (tenth to sixth century BC) have sent out mining expeditions to the Arabah (Negev
& Gibson 2001:507-508).
489
Hathor, among the most complex of deities, was the patron of lovers. She protected children and assisted
women to conceive and give birth (Willis 1993:51). The Greeks identified her with their own goddess Aphro-
dite. Her headdress characteristically has a pair of horns (ancient lunar symbol) with a moon disc between them
(Barrett 1992:59). As a heavenly cow she gives birth to the sun (Heerma van Voss 1999:385).
490
Negev & Gibson 2001:507. Duncan (1936:215) mentions that the archaeologist Flinders Petrie identified the
goddess of the miners’ temple as Astarte, who was worshipped under the name of Hathor. The Egyptian Hathor
of the miners was thus Astarte of Syria and Palestine and Ishtar of Babylonia. The form of worship and ritual in
this temple was distinctly Semitic and not Egyptian.
491
Aharoni 1973:6.
492
493
Excavated twbcm (standing stones) reveal that a large variety of stones had been utilised as twbcm. Some
are finely shaped stones, while others are unworked natural slab. As a rule, these stones have no inscriptions or
relief on it. Ancient Near Eastern stelae – in contrast to uninscribed twbcm in Palestine – were normally in-
scribed, such as some commemorative Egyptian stelae. The archaeological context of the twbcm is directly re-
lated to the purpose of the stones. Apart from memorial, legal or commemorative functions, it could have a cul-
tic function marking the exact sacred point where the deity might be found, and where sacrifice and worship
would reach the deity. twbcm as "cultic markers" were customary at the entrance to a temple (Graessar
1972:34-37, 46). For a detailed discussion of the typology, categories, function and a number of examples of
twbcm see Graessar (1972:34-63).
494
Genesis 28:10-22; 31:13. Standing stones or memorial pillars were associated with the custom of sleeping
near a shrine in the hope of getting guidance by a dream. Bethel – known as Luz – was possibly a shrine. Jacob
probably slept there with this hope for instruction from the deity of the place (Duncan 1936:219).
71
veneration of more than one god. Some conclusions may be drawn concerning twbcm495
when taking literary and comparable archaeological data into consideration. Mettinger 496 in-
dicates that increasing documentary evidence confirms the importance of stelae in West Se-
mitic cults. Although prohibitions were placed on a hbcm for and a sculpted image of Yah-
weh, the Israelites regarded standing stones as a 'legitimate expression of religious wor-
ship'. 497 In early Israel twbcm were apparently interpreted to be 'commemorative of Yahweh's
theophanies and historical acts',498 while later – under the influence of their neighbours – they
were utilised for cultic purposes.499 From rabbinic times the term Asherah has been exten-
sively discussed and even today no consensus has yet been reached whether it refers to a god-
dess or a cult object associated with standing stones. twbcm were part of the religious and
cultural context of the Ancient Near East long before Israel was established as a nation. 500
Although this research does not warrant a detailed discussion of cult sites, it is, nevertheless,
deemed necessary to deliberate briefly on some important Israelite and Judahite sanctuaries.
2.14.2 Tel Arad

Arad, an important city on the border of Judah in the eastern Negeb, 501 was on the main road
to Edom. Biblical tradition502 refers to its king, Arad the Canaanite, who dwelt in the South.
The Negeb of Arad is also referred to as the Wilderness of Judah. 503 There is no certainty that
the site of Tel Arad is to be identified with ancient Canaanite Arad as no remains of a city of
the Middle and Late Bronze ages have been found. Scholars have several suggestions to
solve the problem, such as that Canaanite Arad was the name of a district and not of a city. 504
The name Arad is mentioned only three times in the Hebrew Bible505 and it appears once as
the corrupted name Eder.506 The three references to Arad allude to the Canaanites. The mate-
rial-culture contribution by Canaanite Arad to the settlements in southern Sinai is interpreted
495
For further discussion see Zevit 2001:261.
496
Mettinger 1997:225.
497
Mettinger 1997:226.
498
Graessar 1972:62.
499
Graessar 1972:62.
500
Zevit 2001:255-266.
501
The Negeb stretches south from the border of Judah. The name means dryness but, in the Hebrew Bible, it is
sometimes an allusion to the South. The Plain of Beer-sheba forms its northern border. It was never an impor-
tant international trade route as large parts of the Negeb are mountainous. In biblical times it was of little eco-
nomic importance; there were, however, copper mines in the region of Timnah (Negev & Gibson 2001:365).
See footnote on the Timnah Valley in § 2.14.1.
502
Numbers 21:1.
503
504
Aharoni 1993:85.
505
Numbers 21:1; 33:40; Joshua 12:14.
506
Joshua 15:21.
72
by scholars as a confirmation that groups of Canaanites from southern Palestine moved into
Sinai in order to mine copper. Finkelstein, 507 however, is of the opinion that the semi-arid
region of Arad could hardly have supported a large additional population group. It is also
misleading to describe Arad as a typical Canaanite urban centre from the Early Bronze Age,
as many aspects in the layout are unique to Arad. If Arad had been a central Canaanite ad-
ministrative urban centre for the Negeb and Sinai, it should have been established further
north. Amiran, 508 on the other hand, indicates that an extensive survey of the Negeb support
the argument that Arad – as central administrative city – was the only city or town in the en-
tire area of the Negeb and Sinai during the Early Bronze Age II. 509 The impact of the infiltra-
tion of foreigners – probably migrating from the North – is visible in a large number of sites,
where the process of destruction and rebuilding is evident. A climatic change, due to fluctua-
tions in the rainfall pattern, had severe consequences on the living conditions of the region
that contributed to the eventual collapse of the city.
Herzog and others510 indicate that two Arads have been excavated: a large, walled Canaanite
city, dated 3200-2050 BC and an Israelite citadel, dated 1200-586 BC.511 As from 1962, an
Israelite fortress was excavated at Tel Arad. Excavations there are unequalled therein that it
incorporates a continuous archaeological record from ca 1200 BC to the Babylonian destruc-
tion of the First Temple in 586 BC. 512 Stratum XII indicates that an Early Iron Age unwalled
village, dated twelfth to eleventh century BC was built on the destruction level of an Early
Bronze Age city of approximately fifteen hundred years earlier. Very little is known about
Arad from historical sources. Its identification is only certain owing to its Arabic name Tel
‛Arâd.513 Rainey514 points out that 'relative chronology is not absolute chronology, even when
authorities have reached a consensus'. Although an earthquake had been reported 515 during
507
Finkelstein 1990:37, 39.
508
Amiran 1986:75-76.
509
3050-2700 BC (Negev & Gibson 2001:556). Excavations conducted by Beit-Arieh (1984:20-23) in the
southern Sinai brought to light a network of Canaanite settlements during the Early Bronze Age II. The copper
mines in the region were exploited by these settlers who had close ties with southern Canaan, and specifically
with Arad, where they probably delivered the metal. They would not have been able to exist without the support
of a stable political and strong economic body. Although Egyptian presence in southern Canaan during this
period is indisputable, relations between Canaan and Egypt would have been on friendly terms and not based on
military control. 'Egypt would certainly not have remained indifferent to the exploitation of the copper-mines by
a hostile power' (Beit-Arieh 1984:23).
510
Herzog et al 1987:21.
511
For a detailed description of the excavated areas, see Herzog et al (1987:18-35).
512
513
Herzog et al 1984:1-3.
514
Rainey 1985:73-74.
515
Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5.
73
the reign of the Judean king Uzziah, 516 there is no evidence of an earthquake at Arad, and
should not be used as an argument when dealing with its chronological history. The dominant
ethnic element in the eastern Negeb was the Amalekites, 517 before the emergence of the Isra-
elites.518
Early Bronze II settlement patterns at sites in the Negeb and Sinai indicate that the inhabitants
were indigenous to the desert. When there is a new source of income, nomads usually settle
down, giving up their traditional migration pattern. Short-distance herding could be carried
out, as well as copper mining, smelting and trade. During the Early Iron Age the clan of Ho-
bab, the Kenite,519 settled in the Negeb of Arad and built a cult place on Tel Arad. In the
course of time a settlement developed around the cult place. 520 Inscription 24 of excavated
ostraca521 at Tel Arad mentions the fortress Kinah that was subordinate to Arad, but not far
from it. The name Kinah is usually connected to the Kenites. 522 The Kenites practised
"priest-craft and ritual". The shrine was erected in the middle of the territory to serve the in-
habitants of the eastern Negeb in their religious practices. 523 When the Israelites built their
altar524 it was constructed on the platform that may have been a twelfth century BC Kenite
shrine. 525 Two biblical texts526 refer to the Negeb of the Kenites, the Jerahmeelites and Judah,
and of the towns of the Kenites and the Jerahmeelites. It is, furthermore, commonly accepted
that the Kenites were associated with Arad. 527 Descendants of Judah were originally inhabi-
tants of the Negeb of Judah. 528 The Jerahmeelites, who were linked to the Kenites, 529 are in-
dicated in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles530 as 'not only an integral part of the tribe of Judah
but one of the most central and "Israelite" clans of the tribe', 531 and, as the Kenites, they were
516
Tenth king of Judah; 767-740/39 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
517
Numbers 13:29. Amalek, grandson of Esau, was designated as one of the clans in the land of Edom (Gn
36:9-12, 15-16). Right through their history, the Amalekites were essentially a nomadic desert tribe. They ar-
rived in the Negeb near Beer-sheba early in the second millennium BC (Landes 1962a:101).
518
519
Named as father-in-law of Moses. See § 5.2 and § 5.4 for a discussion of the Kenites and Moses, respect-
ively.
520
Aharoni 1993:85.
521
Ostracon (plural: ostraca): Greek word for a potsherd; in archaeological terms it describes fragments of pot-
tery, stone or bone, which were used to write on (Kenyon 1987:185). Inscriptions on ostraca at Arad were writ-
ten mainly with ink on potsherds; including political, administrative and religious documents (Herzog et al
1987:17).
522
Aharoni 1981:146.
523
Herzog 2001:171.
524
Tenth century BC.
525
526
1 Samuel 27:10; 30:29.
527
Judges 1:16.
528
Galil 2001:34, 38, 41.
529
See § 6.2.5 for a discussion on the connection between the Kenites and Jerahmeelites.
530
1 Chronicles 2:4, 5, 9.
531
Galil 2001:33.
74
originally one of the marginal nomadic tribes of the land of Judah. It is not clear what the re-
lationship between the Kenites and the Amalekites was. 532 The inhabitants of Arad also could
have included merchants from the northern territories who participated in the economy of this
region.533
During the tenth century BC the Israelites built their first fortress at Arad. At more or less the
same time they erected a temple, which included the rybd.534 The uncovering of an Iron Age
Israelite temple in southern Judah has significant consequences for the study of the Israelite
religion in the Monarchical Period.535 In Israel there are only two archaeologically known
Iron Age temples – those at Tel Arad and Tel Dan. 536 Ussishkin537 indicates that the discov-
ery of a shrine and cultic equipment at Arad is of major significance for biblical archaeology
and history. The site at Tel Arad has a complex stratigraphy 538 which impedes the dating of
the temple. The main point of dispute is 'the assumed relationship between the dismantling of
the temple and the erection of the late casemate wall that cut through the main hall of the
temple'. 539 Herzog540 concludes that the casemate walls belong to the Hellenistic Period.
Finds from the initial excavations at Arad by Aharoni and his team, led to disparate interpreta-
tions by later scholars. This could be ascribed to Aharoni's team not having at their disposal
subsequent (more modern) methods of excavation and registration. 541 The sanctuary was the
most important building within the citadel of Arad. Its Yahwistic character is confirmed by
regular Yahwistic theophoric names on ostraca, especially by those of Judean priestly fami-
lies. 542 'The incorporation of the Arad shrine into a royal Israelite fortress leaves no room for
doubt regarding its Israelite character.'543 No agreement has been reached amongst scholars
regarding the reconstruction of the plan of the Solomonic Temple. Many recreations are
based on the conception that the building consisted of three adjoining rooms. Temple build-
ings from Syria-Palestine have only one room with a niche for a statue of the goddess. There
532
533
534
Holy of Holies (Herzog et al 1987:31). Innermost chamber in a temple where an image of the god was
placed, or where the god resided. Only the priests had access to this chamber (Negev & Gibson 2001:558).
535
Herzog 2001:156.
536
Mazar 2001:7.
537
Ussishkin 1988:142.
538
For an explanation of the term stratigraphy (in archaeology) see relevant footnote in § 2.12.
539
Herzog 2001:159.
540
Herzog 2001:159.
541
Na’aman 2002:588-589.
542
Aharoni 1981:148.
543
75
is a striking similarity between the Arad temple and the Tabernacle in respect of their propor-
tions, which are identical. The description of the Tabernacle links the Arad sanctuary and
Solomonic Temple, although the latter was one of its kind in its design. 544 The description of
the Tabernacle is based on an early tradition which was obviously influenced by the Solo-
monic Temple. Parallels to the basic Israelite sanctuary are found, inter alia, at the Egyptian
miners' temple at Timnah.545 Unfortunately we have no descriptions of early Israelite sanctu-
aries. 546
There is a distinct uniformity between the cultic accoutrements at the Jerusalem and Arad
temples. A differentiation should be sustained between the pure 'absence of images on the
one hand, and the programmatic demand for a cult without images.' 547 Indications are that
during Iron Age I and most of Iron Age II 'Israel regarded the massebot cult as a legitimate
expression of religious worship'. 548 Arad had more than one hbcm549 in the rybd,550 which
implies that more than one deity was invoked there. 551 Biblical texts do not state unambigu-
ously what the role of the twbcm was in cultic contexts. In many instances 552 it seems that
twbcm were simply dedicated to a particular deity, thereby to secure the god's presence. 553
Material aniconism554 – cults focussing on standing stones – have been found, inter alia,
among the Israelites. The question is whether this is a Yahwistic-type of cult imported into
Palestine from the South by an immigrating Yahweh-group. Stelae have been found at nu-
merous cult places in the Negeb.555 Mettinger 556 believes 'that the cult of the earliest YHWH-
worshippers was aniconic and was a type of massēbôt cult'. This type of material aniconism
had, however, been an "established practice" in ancient Syria and Palestine much earlier than
544
A raised platform at Arad was probably an altar. A square courtyard contained the sacrificial altar, and in the
back wall of the temple was a niche that served as the rybd. At the entrance thereof were two incense altars. It
furthermore consisted of a broadroom in comparison to the Solomonic Temple's longroom (Herzog et al 1984:3,
7). Two inscribed bowls had been discovered at the sacrificial altar and the Hebrew letters k and q were subse-
quently identified thereon. These signs could be interpreted as "sacrifice" or "holy" (Aharoni 1981:148). Schol-
ars have suggested that these inscribed bowls were offering bowls, wherein a token amount of grain was placed
symbolising a larger amount offered to Yahweh. A marginal temple at Arad would not have been able to offer
large amounts of grain daily (Na’aman 2002:597-598). Small inscribed offering bowls are known from Egyptian
temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty [1570-1293 BC]. The inscription signifies the votive character of the bowl
(Na’aman 2002:598).
545
See § 2.14.1 regarding the fourteenth to twelfth century BC Hathor temple at Timnah.
546
Aharoni 1973:1, 3, 6, 8.
547
Mettinger 1997:221.
548
Mettinger 1997:226.
549
See § 2.14.1 for discussion on "standing stones".
550
Mettinger 1997:226. rybd: Holy of Holies.
551
Zevit 2001:262.
552
For example in Genesis 31:13.
553
Zevit 2001:260-261.
554
See footnote on aniconism in § 1.2.
555
Mettinger 1997:227.
556
Mettinger 1997:227.
76
the development of ancient Israel or the arrival of Yahweh-worshipping groups. Israelite ani-
conism was not a later innovation, but a shared trait of West Semitic cults. The explicit pro-
hibition of images was the culmination of a development over centuries. 557
Scholars recently suggested that the Arad sanctuary had not been destroyed, but that the lay-
ing down of sacred objects signifies a cult reform which could be ascribed to Hezekiah's re-
form ca 715 BC. 558 Although there is much dispute amongst scholars regarding the historicity
of Hezekiah's cult reform, 559 it is feasible to acknowledge the dismantling of altars throughout
Judah during Hezekiah's rule.
A large and unique series of inscriptions on ostraca have been found in the different strata at
Tel Arad.560 Apart from the variety of inscriptions, the different dates thereof contribute to
their importance.561 Palaeographically, as well as historically, the ostraca from the earlier
strata are very important since we have here 'proof that the cursive script of the Hebrew
scribes came into use during the United Kingdom, and at least we have a stratigraphic-historic
basis for Hebrew palaeography'. 562 The ostraca and other inscriptions of Arad 'comprise the
richest and most varied collection of Hebrew inscriptions from the biblical period found up
till now in one place'.563 They come from different periods at the time of the Monarchy –
from the tenth century until the beginning of the sixth century BC. Throughout the Monar-
chy, sherds were commonly used as writing material. A scribal script developed in Israel
from the tenth century BC, culminating in a united scribal school in Judah and Israel. Only
small changes in the forms of the letters were allowed. 564
The inscriptions contain, inter alia, letters to the commanders at Arad informing them of ad-
ministrative and military matters. Although a relatively small fortress, Arad was nevertheless
the administrative and military centre of the area. The inscriptions disclose the names of two
commanders of the citadel of Arad: Malkiyahu in Stratum VIII and Eliashib, son of Eshiyahu,
557
Mettinger 1997:227, 229.
558
Na’aman 2002:586-587. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom [722/721 BC], Hezekiah attempted to unite
the northern and southern tribes in an allegiance to Jerusalem as the only cult centre. As he demanded the aban-
donment of the northern temples – such as a Samaria and Bethel – he was obliged to abolish cult centres in the
South (Na’aman 2002:587).
559
2 Kings 18:4; 2 Chronicles 31:1. Hezekiah's cult reform is dated between 715 and 701 BC (Rainey
1994:333).
560
For a detailed discussion of the various inscriptions found at Arad, see Aharoni 1981.
561
Aharoni 1981:4.
562
Aharoni 1981:4. See description of palaeography incorporated in a footnote on the examination of a number
of Amarna Letters in § 2.5.
563
Aharoni 1981:141.
564
Aharoni 1981:141.
77
in Strata VII and VI.565 At least thirty personal names from the inscriptions contain the theo-
phoric element -yahu. 566 A network of roads and fortresses existed in the Negeb during the
Monarchical Period.567 The Kittiyim, 568 are often mentioned on the ostraca as recipients of
supplies from Arad. We thus have evidence that Aegean-Greek mercenaries were employed
by the kingdom of Judah.
With the religious reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah the sanctuary was abandoned and not re-
built.569 Stratum VI 570 represents the last Israelite citadel which existed for approximately ten
years. Although the fortress generally remained the same, the sanctuary ceased to exist. 571
Inscription 24 furnishes information that Jerusalem received tidings about the approaching
Edomite army. The last Arad fortress fell during the third or fourth year of Zedekiah's rule. 572
This incident could probably be ascribed to the Edomites, who either exploited the weakness
of Judah, or were instigated by the Babylonians to invade Judean cities.573
Herzog574 presents a drastically modified interpretation of the excavations at the Arad for-
tress. His assessment is that there was neither a cult place erected on the site during the elev-
enth century BC nor a temple during the tenth century BC. The temple would probably have
been built ca 800 BC. The abandonment of the temple corroborates the biblical account of
Hezekiah's cult reforms.575 The temple was probably erected in the time of the Judean
565
Aharoni 1981:141-142. It is clear that both commanders exercised considerable authority. Eliashib received
his jurisdiction directly from the king. The name of Eliashib, son of Eshiyahu, appears on ostraca of both the
intermediate and last Hebrew strata, indicating that he could not have held office for more that twenty to thirty
years (Aharoni 1981:129). As seen from the archive of Eliashib, letters on sherds from Jerusalem were sent to
various parts of the country. Letters included instructions regarding the supply of wine and bread, as well as the
dispatching of consignments oil and food to the different fortresses; lists of the allocation of wheat and other
merchandise; inventory lists of the storehouses; offerings and donations to the sanctuary. Eliashib's responsibili-
ties included the royal storehouse at Arad where three types of commodities were kept, namely flour (probably
barley), wine and oil. Some of these products are also mentioned in the Masoretic Text in connection with royal
stores (1 Ki 4:27-28). Authorisation was needed to receive provisions from key fortresses. On presentation of
such authorisation, supplies were handed over from the storehouse; these warrants (authorisations), with the date
of transfer, were kept as receipts (Aharoni 1981:141-144).
566
Apart from the names Eshiyahu and Malkiyahu, we find, inter alia, the name Gemaryahu from a neighbouring
fortress who was the subordinate of Malkiyahu during the eighth century BC. They had daily contact (Aharoni
1981:141, 143).
567
An organisation of transport in the Negeb was based on units of distance per day. See 1 Kings 19:4 as an
example of Elijah travelling south from Beer-sheba, walking a day’s journey into the Wilderness (Aharoni
1981:145).
568
The Kittiyim were mercenaries of Aegean origin (Aharoni 1981:144).
569
Aharoni 1981:149.
570
End of the seventh and beginning of the sixth century BC.
571
Aharoni 1981:8.
572
597-587 BC.
573
Aharoni 1981:150. See 2 Kings 24:2; Jeremiah 35:11.
574
Herzog 2001:174.
575
ca 715 BC.
78
kingdom – ninth or early eighth century BC. Herzog576 indicates that 'Arad is not the location
of a Canaanite city whose king prevented the early attempt of the Israelite tribes to invade
Canaan from the South; no Kenite sanctuary existed in premonarchic Arad [and] the temple of
Arad is not similar to the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem '.
2.14.3 Tel Beer-sheba

As a marginal region for sedentary occupation, the Beer-sheba Valley577 – identified with the
biblical Negeb of Judah – is an ideal area for research on social and cultural transformations
which took place in Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age. 578 Beer-sheba was a prominent
place in the history of the patriarchs 579 and the principal city of the Negeb. A covenant was
made between Abraham and Abimelech, king of Gerar, involving a well at the place of Beer-
sheba.580 Biblical Beer-sheba is identified with Tell es-Seba, a short distance east of modern
Beer-sheba. Several occupation levels have been identified during excavations, the earliest
representing unfortified settlements. During the tenth century BC a massive city wall was
erected. The city is mentioned together with Dan, Bethel and Gilgal as a religious centre. 581
Scholars have proposed different ethnic identities582 for the settlers of the highlands of the
Negeb and the Beer-sheba Valley, which could be recognised from their material culture.
Traditionally these occupants were observed as Israelites, but arguments have been put for-
ward that they were actually different desert tribes. Biblical data support the viewpoint that
the Negeb of Judah is connected with multifarious groups, such as the families of Jerahmeel-
ites, Kenites, Calebites and Kenizzites, as well as Amalekites and Canaanites – and not only
the tribes of Judah and Simeon.583
576
Herzog 2001:175.
577
The Beer-sheba Valley, situated between the Negeb (desert climate) to the south and the Mediterranean to the
north, lies in a climatic zone characteristic of a steppe landscape. The valley soils are arable but agriculture is
exposed to frequent losses as the result of droughts, with consequential sporadic permanent settlements (Herzog
1994:122).
578
Herzog 1994:122.
579
Genesis 21:31-33; 22:19; 26: 23, 33; 28:10; 46:1, 5.
580
The place was called Beer-sheba, "the well of the oath" (Gn 21:22-33) (Negev & Gibson 2001:73).
581
Negev & Gibson 2001:73-74.
582
New approaches to anthropological and sociological research proffer a different definition of ethnicity and are
'not defined according to a determined and permanent list of traits, such as common language, territorial continu-
ity and shared biological ties of origin. Ethnicity is now seen as a flexible phenomenon, constantly changing and
developing within the complex and multidirectional processes of social interaction' (Herzog 1994:147). Social
groups, therefore, adapt to this "constantly changing" environmental and socio-economic situations (Herzog
1994:147).
583
Herzog 1994:146-148.
79
During the course of excavations at Tel Beer-sheba fragments of a large ashlar-built 584 horned
altar were found. One of the four horns of the altar was broken. Aharoni, involved with ex-
cavations on the site at the time, assumed that the altar was an indication of a sanctuary or a
temple as mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. 585 However, notwithstanding large-scale excava-
tions, no sanctuary has been found. The horned altar could possibly have been dismantled
and the sanctuary razed to the ground during Hezekiah's cult reform. There is, thus, no tangi-
ble evidence to support a hypothesis of a "lost sanctuary" and, furthermore, the historical
background of the altar's dismantling is unknown. Several scenarios have been proposed for
this dismantling.586 The discovery of this horned altar from Tel Beer-sheba is by far the most
acclaimed archaeological find from this site. Black stain marks indicate a metal grill that had
been on the top of the altar, suggesting that fires were kindled for periodic sacrifices. The
most feasible position for the altar would have been in a courtyard, following the same pattern
as at Arad, the Jerusalem Temple and the pentateuchal Tabernacle, as well as a Hellenistic
temple found at Tel Beer-sheba.587 Horned altars have been found elsewhere in the late tenth
to eighth centuries BC Israelite and Judahite kingdoms, although most of them were not in
cultic contexts.588 Horns – as corner-pieces of sacred altars in Israelite sanctuaries 589 – were
ostensibly substitutes for the horns of the deity. 590 The Beer-sheba altar had been constructed
584
An ashlar-built altar, or ashlar masonry, refers to rectangular hewn or square-cut stones used in a construction
and laid regularly (Kenyon 1987:184). Hewn stone: to strike or cut stone, shaping it by using an axe (Hanks
1992:230).
585
Implicit references are, for example, Genesis 21:33; 2 Kings 23:8; Amos 8:14.
586
See Na’aman (2002:593-594) for various proposed scenarios.
587
Rainey 1994:339, 348.
588
Na’aman 2002:593-595.
589
1 Kings 1:50-51; 2:28.
590
Bury et al 1925:427. As no etiology [see footnote in § 3.3 for an explanation] is provided for the cultic func-
tion of horns it is evident that biblical writers were well acquainted with the purpose of horns in religious activi-
ties (Zevit 2001:347). Dever (2005:120) confirms that the original significance of horns is unclear, but indicates
that these "stylised horns" had a functional role later in supporting containers, probably used as incense-burners.
Matthiae (1990:345) refers to a series of bronze statuettes from the Old and Middle Syrian periods – dated 2000-
1600 BC and 1600-1200 BC, respectively. These statuettes – called male deities and worshippers – are male
figurines, either sitting or standing. They are, furthermore, distinguished by an elongated ovoid (egg-shaped)
tiara. One of these, a well-known statuette probably from Mishrife-Qatna, has a tiara with four pairs of horns –
on top of each other. Although these statuettes have been classified as deities 'there is no doubt that the only
element which might confirm this identification is the multiple horns of the Qatna statuette, stylistically the most
important of the series … (however) it is not sufficient to prove that the statuette represents a deity', yet, the
ovoid royal tiara with divine horns is a confirmation of a merging of royal and divine aspects in these figurines
(Matthiae 1990:345-347). Qatna is a large tell in Syria. Although the site has traces of prehistoric settlements
the earliest building remains date from the early second millennium BC when Qatna was a small fortified town.
Situated on the Via Maris (the "way of the sea", connecting Egypt with Babylonia through the western Sinai and
along the coast of the Philistines) it developed into a large city, due to trade relations with neighbouring coun-
tries (Negev & Gibson 2001:418, 437). A classic Mesopotamian tiara with divine horns is part of the statue of
Puzur-Ishtar from Mari. A sculpture of the king of Ebla portrays him with a royal tiara, decorated by a pair of
horns. Ancient kings were deified – probably represented by bronze statuettes – and considered to be protective
deities of the kingdom (Matthiae 1990:347-349). Cornelius (2004:25) states that a horned headdress is an indi-
cation that a figure is a deity. See § 2.3 for a footnote on "apocalyptic application of horns". Horns of consecra-
tion on altars had an Ancient Near Eastern cultic function dating back to the late fourth millennium BC (Jamdat
Nasr period) (Astour 1973:22).
80
of hewn stones. The horns were carved to form the top rim of the altar. It is significant that
the altar was manufactured from hewn stones, despite the prohibition in Exodus 20:25. The
priests who built the altar could have been unaware of, or not bound by, this rule, or it could
have been promulgated only much later.591
Although scholars have opposing views regarding the historicity of Hezekiah's cult reform, 592
there is no reason to doubt the dismantling of altars in Judah during Hezekiah's reign. 593 This
reform is dated between 715 and 701 BC. 594 Rainey595 maintains that a temple – to which the
altar belonged – stood on a designated area and was destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah.
At a later stage it was replaced by another building. With Hezekiah's cult reform the altar was
dismantled and its stones hidden in different places.
A large number of metal objects, as well as remains from a copper metallurgical industry –
dated as far back as the beginning of the fourth millennium BC – were found at nearby Tel
Arad. It is known that the Valley of Beer-sheba was the core of copper metallurgy. Sinai has
also often been cited as a source of ancient copper.596 Beer-sheba, furthermore, lies at the
junction of a watershed from Hebron to Egypt, and would have been a caravan stopping-
place. It was a religious sanctuary, as from the time of the patriarchs, and could even have
been a place of pilgrimage. El Olam597 was its guardian deity, worshipped by Abraham and
later assimilated to Yahweh-worship, reinterpreting the name as an epithet of Yahweh.598
2.14.4 Tel Dan

In Genesis 14:14 599 Dan is mentioned for the first time in the Hebrew Bible. The city was
then called Laish or Leshem. 600 One of the most complete narrations in the Hebrew Bible of
591
Zevit 2001:301-302.
592
2 Kings 18:4; 2 Chronicles 31:1.
593
Hezekiah: 716/15 – 687/6 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
594
Rainey 1994:333.
595
Rainey 1994:349.
596
Hauptmann et al 1999:1-2.
597
The Everlasting God.
598
Cohen 1962a:375-376.
599
Genesis 14:14: 'When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men,
born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.'
600
Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29. Mari letters attest that the later city Dan had been the Late Bronze Age thriving
Canaanite city Laish. Ruin of this settlement was followed by a century-long abandonment. The following set-
tlement is attributed to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:40-48; Jdg 1:34; 18). Living initially in modest houses and tents,
the standard of living of the residents of Dan proliferated in the course of time. This settlement was eventually
incorporated into the kingdom of Israel (during the tenth century BC) (Nakhai 2003:136-137). The name of king
Horon-Ab, of the city Laish, appears in the eighteenth century BC Egyptian Execration Texts [curse texts], and
the name Laish, furthermore, in the records of Thutmose III [1504-1450 BC]. Nothing of relevant interest is
additionally known about the city (Biran 1994a:21).
81
an ancient Hebrew tribe's migration is documented in Judges 18. The tribe of Dan conquered
Laish and changed its name to Dan. There is no indication whether the whole tribe migrated
north.601 Archaeological confirmation for the conquest of Laish by the tribe of Dan is inci-
dental. 602 Dan was situated on the main crossroads and duly benefited from toll imposed on
passing caravans. The tribe of Dan shed its semi-nomadic character shortly after settle-
ment.603 Tel Dan, earlier known as Tell el-Qadi, 604 lies at the source of the Jordan River. A
bilingual inscription in Greek and Aramaic excavated at Tel Dan confirms the identification
of Dan-Laish with Tel Dan. 605 The discovery of crucibles, copper slag, blowpipes and fur-
naces at the site of Tel Dan suggests that the inhabitants engaged in metalwork, traditionally
attributed to the tribe of Dan.606 There is the possibility that the Danites learned the art of
metalwork from the original inhabitants of Laish – taking into consideration that tin was sent
from Mari to Laish, 607 however, the reputation of the Danites as metalworkers may also be
implied by 2 Chronicles 2:12-14.608 The tribe of Dan, likewise, had 'the peculiar characteris-
tic of being associated with ships in the Old Testament', 609 and scholars have suggested that
they originally formed part of one of the Egyptian military units in places such as Beth Shean,
Gaza and Dor.610
More than one altar, as well as various objects related to the cult, was uncovered at Tel Dan.
These archaeological finds supplement the sparse information in 1 Kings 12.611 An altar was
also excavated – probably from the ninth to eighth century BC building complex – with a
'single, large, well-carved horn'. 612 The cultic activities at Dan reached their peak during the
rule of Jeroboam II.613 He extended the borders of his kingdom substantially to the north and
601
Biran 1994a:125.
602
Biran 1994b:4.
603
Biran 1994a:135.
604
Tell el-Qadi means "Mound of the Judge". The city – situated at the foot of Mount Hermon – had abundant
water supplies. During the third millennium BC it became a prosperous, fortified city (Negev & Gibson
2001:131).
605
Biran 1994b:1. This dedicatory inscription reads, 'To the God who is in Dan'. The inscription is dated to the
Hellenistic Period (Biran 2001:148).
606
The tribe of Dan assisted in the construction of the Tabernacle (Ex 31:4-11; 35:34).
607
According to texts from Mari, tin was sent by king Zimri-Lim of Mari to the city of Laish (Biran 1994a:90).
See footnote on Zimri-Lim in § 2.4.
608
Biran 1994b:5.
609
Kuhrt 1995:392. Judges 5:17.
610
Kuhrt 1995:392. From descriptions in the Papyrus Harris, scholars deduce that the Egyptians used the Sea
Peoples (see footnote in § 2.7) as mercenaries and military units. Archaeological and textual evidence indicates
that the Philistines – one of the groups of the Sea Peoples – settled in Palestinian areas where the Egyptians
maintained fortresses with troops. As the Egyptian power in the area collapsed, soldiers reorganised themselves
into independent cities (Kuhrt 1995:389-390).
611
Biran 2001:149.
612
Zevit 2001:302. See footnotes in § 2.3, § 2.14.1 and § 2.14.3 on "horns".
613
Jeroboam II: king of Israel 782/81-753 BC; co-regent as from 793/92 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
82
east, thereby contributing to the central position of Dan and the consequential centrality of the
cult at Dan. A basalt hbcm614 at the Israelite gate complex confirms the existence of a cult
and could very well represent a sanctuary at the gate complex. Five twbcm and a large num-
ber of votive vessels have been found at the foot of the city wall. Apart from the main shrine
at the spring, ninth and eighth century BC twmb615 have also been discovered. It is evident
that the cult practised at the entrance to the city continued even after the Assyrian conquest 616
and that it was ingrained in the custom and memory of the people. It is unlikely that Dan was
the only place practising the cult at the city entrance. Similar elements at other sites could
possibly come to light in due course. 617
A passage in the Hebrew Bible 618 informs us that Jeroboam619 – for political reasons620 – had
a golden calf set up at Dan during the second half of the tenth century BC. He also 'made
temples on high places and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not of the
Levites'. 621 The centrality of Dan for the cult of Northern Israel is furthermore accentuated by
the description in 1 Kings 12.622 The setting-up of a golden calf reminiscent of the apostasy
of the Israelites at Mount Sinai623 – is 'an audacious declaration establishing his alternative to
the Jerusalem Temple'.624 The continuity of a long religious tradition was emphasised by the
establishment of new cult centres at Dan and Bethel. The golden calf at Dan has not been
discovered – most likely carried off by one of its foreign conquerors for its precious gold. 625
During the reign of Ahab626 the city was fortified and the sanctuary restored to its former
glory – its grandeur carried through to the time of Jeroboam II. An amphora627 handle,
stamped with the name Immadi-Yo628 – meaning "God is with me"– has been excavated. Im-
madi-Yo lived at the time of Jeroboam II. 629 A ninth century BC head of a woman figurine –
614
See footnote in § 2.14.1 on hbcm and twbcm.
615
See footnote in § 2.14.1 on twmb.
616
Tiglath-pileser III's campaign against Damascus and Israel 733-732 BC (Ehrlich 2001:59).
617
Biran 2001:149, 153, 155.
618
1 Kings 12:26-29.
619
Jeroboam I, first king of Israel in the Divided Kingdom; ruled 931/30-910/09 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell
1982:196).
620
To prevent the Israelites from pledging allegiance to the Davidic dynasty, Jeroboam I set up a golden calf at
Bethel and at Dan, thereby establishing new cult centres in the North (Biran 1994a:165).
621
1 Kings 12:31.
622
Biran 2001:148. 1 Kings 12:29-30.
623
Exodus 32:1-8. Apostasy: abandonment of a faith, conviction or principle (Deist 1990:18).
624
Dever 2005:150-151.
625
Biran 1994a:165, 168.
626
Ahab ruled 874/3-853 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
627
See § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach" for footnote on "amphora".
628
Immadi-Yo – "God is with me" – is reminiscent of the name Immanu-el – "God is with us". The name Im-
madi-Yahu appears on a recently discovered ostracon from the Negeb in Judah. The theophoric ending -Yo cor-
responds with -Yahu from Judah (Biran 1994a:199-201).
629
Biran 1994a:189, 199-201. Jeroboam II: see earlier footnote in this paragraph.
83
possibly Astarte – was discovered at the hmb.630 The cultic activities at Dan were later
undoubtedly affected by the military and political instability following the Babylonian and
Persian conquests.631 The continued use of the sanctuary is attested by a terracotta figurine of
the god Bes632 that has been uncovered, as well as a horse-and-rider figurine and a number of
other small cult objects. The name "Dan" – meaning "to judge" – was kept alive in the Arabic
name "Tell el-Qadi", "Mound of the Judge".633
Since the discovery at Tel Dan of an old Aramaic inscription from the mid-ninth century BC,
there have been ongoing debates regarding a phrase in this inscription. It is confirmed as one
of the 'most important epigraphic finds made in Israel in the nineties or in any other dec-
ade'. 634 The inscription indicates that, contrary to arguments by minimalists that "biblical Is-
rael" is an invention of the Persian or Hellenistic periods, 'the historical memory of the bibli-
cal texts extended much farther back'. 635 A stone fragment 636 – part of a larger block – en-
graved with words separated by dots, was found in the remains of an eastern wall. 637 A year
later two more fragments were discovered. 638 The phrase on one of the fragments which
630
631
Babylonian conquest: 587/586 BC; Persian conquest: 539 BC.
632
See footnote in § 4.3.9 for a description of Bes.
633
Biran 1994a:214, 273.
634
Ehrlich 2001:57.
635
Ehrlich 2001:58.
636
The length of the fragment is 32 cm, and at its maximum the width is 22 cm. According to the type of break
the excavators conclude that the stele – an estimated original length of one metre – was smashed in antiquity.
The stone had been smoothed for writing and a round-edged stylus was probably used (Biran & Naveh 1993:84-
85).
637
This wall borders a large pavement (piazza) at the entrance to the outer gate of the city. An elaborate gate
system was constructed in the mid-ninth century BC. A stele could have been erected during the first half of the
ninth century BC and smashed approximately in the middle of the ninth century BC. An inscribed fragment of
this stele was set in the wall sometime between the demolition of the stele and the destruction of the gate com-
plex during the eighth century BC (Biran & Naveh 1993:81, 84-86). Excavations have not revealed as yet when
and by whom the stele was smashed (Biran & Naveh 1995:8).
638
The letters on both these fragments were clear and the words separated by dots. The maximum dimensions of
the surface of the three joined fragments are 19,5 x 12 cm. The translation of the inscription reads as follows:
1 [… …] and cut [… ]
2 […] my father went up [against him when] he fought at […]
3 And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors] (viz. became sick and died). And the king of I[s-]
4 rael entered previously in my father's land. [And] Hadad made me king.
5 And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven […-]
6 s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-]
7 riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8 king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9 g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]
10 their land into [desolation … ]
11 other [… and Jehu ru-]
12 led over Is[rael … and I laid]
13 siege upon [ … ]
(Biran & Naveh 1995:2, 5, 9, 13). For a detailed discussion of each line, see Biran & Naveh (1995:13-17). Ehr-
lich (2001:63) indicates that the exact relationship between the first fragment and the two fragments later discov-
ered is unclear.
84
caused a stir amongst biblical scholars reads: dwdtyb639 and is translated as 'the House of Da-
vid'.640 Until the discovery of this fragment the state Israel could not be dated later than the
mid-ninth century BC. 641 By the ninth century BC Judah's dynastic name was "the house of
David", as now attested by this inscription – thus the figure of David was firmly established at
that time.642 The fragments are part of – what must have been – a monumental inscription
recording the great deeds of the composer of the text. The language of the text on the stele, as
well as a reference to the god Hadad,643 indicates that the inscription was written on authority
of an Aramaean ruler – probably Hazael. Conflicts between Aram and Israel were not un-
common during the ninth century BC. 644 Reference to the "king of Israel" in line eight is par-
allel to the translation "the house of David" in line nine. This phrase is a synonym for the
kingdom of Judah and its ruling sovereignty. Therefore, this could be considered as a 'power-
ful witness for the existence of a David.'645 Halpern646 does not agree that the inscription re-
fers to Hazael of Aram, but attributes it to his son Ben-Hadad II.647 He furthermore indicates
that there is no biblical evidence that Judah formed an alliance with Israel against Aram dur-
ing the early years of the Divided Kingdom648 – as scholars have indicated in the transla-
tion.649 Halpern650 concludes that, in the examination of historical sources, scholars 'generally
expect too much in terms of accuracy, chronological arrangement, and detail.' Ancient Near
639
Although the literature referred to in this paragraph, mainly makes use of transcribed forms of the Hebrew
words, the relevant words in this text are given in the Hebrew script, particularly referring to dwd dwd (David)
and dwdtyb bytdwd (house of David). In the latter instance alternative translations are referred to in this para-
graph.
640
Biran & Naveh 1995:12-13.
641
The phrase is contemporary to the mentioning of Israelite kings on Assyrian epigraphs and the Mesha Stele
(Halpern 1994:63). It has recently been proposed to read line thirteen on the Mesha Stele as btdwd, thus being
parallel to the Tel Dan-phrase (Ehrlich 2001:63). See § 4.3.8 on the Mesha Stele.
642
Halpern 1997:314.
643
See § 3.5 on Hadad.
644
The king who left his monument at Dan could have been a king of Damascus – probably Hazael [he came to
power in 842 BC]. The inscription possibly refers to the deaths of king Jehoram of Israel [852-841 BC] and
Ahaziah of Judah [841 BC] [2 Ki 8:7-29; 9:13-28]. Jehu [841-814/13 BC] became king of Israel after Jehoram
(Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196). According to the inscription, Hazael gave himself credit for the deaths of Je-
horam and Ahaziah, or otherwise regarded Jehu to be his agent. The inscription is, unfortunately, fragmentary,
but the indication is that Jehoram and Ahaziah are mentioned, as well as the very important first extra-biblical
reference to "the house of David" (Arnold & Beyer 2002:165).
645
Ehrlich 2001:61.
646
Halpern 1994:69, 73.
647
Date uncertain; could be 860-843 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
648
See a previous footnote on the translation of the inscription, with reference to the deaths of Jehoram and
Ahaziah (2 Ki 8:7-29; 9:13-28). A tradition of conflict between Israel and Judah during the first years of the
Divided Kingdom is reflected in 1 Kings 14:30; 15:7, 16-22. For a detailed discussion of the text, as well as the
dating thereof, see Halpern (1994:64-78).
649
Although the names of the kings of Judah and Israel are missing on the first fragment, only two possible
matches could be suggested, namely Ahaziah of Judah and his contemporary Jehoram of Israel, who ruled con-
currently with Hazael of Damascus-Aram (Ehrlich 2001:64).
650
Halpern 1994:74.
85
Eastern documents about events are biased, inaccurate and selective. Demsky651 points out
that five aspects should be clarified when examining an ancient inscription. 652
As mentioned earlier, Halpern653 indicates that – despite this inscription – some scholars insist
on denying that a tribal Israel existed in the central hills in the late thirteenth century. On the
one hand, the maximalists654 argue that the boundary of the "historical memory of the biblical
narrative" has been moved back by quite a number of decades, while, on the other hand, min-
imalists see no bearing on the biblical history. However, the minimalists do not hesitate to
claim the Persian and Hellenistic periods – for which there are minimal sources – as being the
time for the reconstruction of an ideological history. 655 Davies656 mentions that Biran and
Naveh657 do not consider the possibility of more credible readings for dwdtyb than their claim
for "House of David". He points out that all the words in line thirteen of the inscription are
separated by a customary dot – called a word divider – with the exception of this phrase,
which implies that there could be another reading.658 Davies,659 furthermore, recommends
that scholars should not jump to conclusions but rather see the difference between 'what a text
says, what it might say and what we would like it to say'. The phrase under discussion pro-
vides, likewise, a better reading for Amos 9:11. 660 Ben Zvi661 draws the attention to plausible
651
Demsky 1995:29.
652
The following features should be taken into consideration: archaeological context, type of inscription, palaeo-
graphical analysis, linguistic study and historical synthesis (Demsky 1995:29-30).
653
Halpern 1997:335. See § 2.7.
654
See § 8.9 on the maximalists and minimalists.
655
Ehrlich 2001:65.
656
Davies 1994b:54-55. Known as one of the minimalists.
657
Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, respectively the archaeologist and the palaeographer involved with the
dwdtyb inscription and the interpretation thereof.
658
Davies (1994b:54-55) argues that there is no plausible reason why these two words were not separated by a
dot, unless they were meant to be read as one word, for example a place name, such as BethLechem (Bethle-
hem). Such a place name could be Beth-dod – with the w serving as a rudimentary vowel as it is in the case of
the Philistine city Ashdod. In the Hebrew Bible dwd could also mean "beloved" or "uncle". There is, further-
more, a likely contradiction in the claim of the inscription that Aram defeated both Israel and Judah, while ac-
cording to the biblical passage Israel and Judah could not have been fighting together (1 Ki 15:16-22).
659
Davies 1994b:55.
660
Amos 9:11: 'In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its
ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old.' Many scholars see the expression dywd tks (the booth of David) as a
clear reference to David and a "metaphorical" (see below) interpretation of his "booth" – referring to his dynasty,
his kingdom, or his city. Davies (1994a:23), furthermore, mentions that other scholars now propose that the
phrase from the Tel Dan inscription, together with a better reading of the Mesha-inscription, may be a reference
to a building dedicated to dwd – which is now read as an epithet of a deity. Therefore, a promise of restoration
of the ruins is read in Amos 9:11. The variation in the spelling of dywd in the Masoretic Text, rather than dwd,
indicates that the copyists understood the reading to be "David". Tel Dan's dwdtyb may, therefore, be a building
or toponym linked to the god (Davies 1994a:23-24). Metaphorical: referring to one object or concept as if it
were another, therefore the transfer of a name or description from one object or concept to another is not literally
denoted by that name or description, for example, "God is light", in which light is not meant to be a literal de-
scription of God (Deist 1990:156).
661
Ben Zvi 1994:26-29. The term dwd appears in the Mesha-inscription, dated approximately the same time as
the Tel Dan stele. Both inscriptions – composed from the perspective of neighbours of Israel – deal with the
86
alternative interpretations of dwdtyb – other than "House of David". The phrase is more like-
ly an allusion to a deity – probably Yahweh – thus referring to the temple at Dan, as "the
House of Yahweh". In another possible reading, dwd could be understood as the title of an
important Israelite officer, thereby alluding to his house – the alternative for a royal palace.
Cryer 662 mentions that Biran and Naveh are to be criticised for their promotion of an "odd"
interpretation of the text, rather than simply to present the text to the scholarly world. He, fur-
thermore, indicates that in his announcement of the find Biran declined to answer any ques-
tions about it. The appearance of an inscription – allegedly referring to David – at a time
when the historicity of the United Kingdom was under attack, gives rise to suspicion. Such an
interesting epigraphic find should necessarily be scrutinised for its authenticity. Cryer 663 re-
jects the so-called "evidence" of the inscription to be a confirmation of the existence of a bib-
lical Israel. Lemche and Thompson664 point out the importance of Cryer's contribution, espe-
cially concerning his analysis of the epigraphical evidence 665 wherein he indicates that forms
in the inscription are related to other Aramaic inscriptions which belong to the late eighth or
early seventh century BC, and not to the mid-ninth century BC, as proffered by Naveh. They
propose that dwdtyb could be a name of a holy place at Dan, with dwd referring to a protect-
ing god, "the beloved". Discussions by some scholars – which were started more than a hun-
dred years ago by Hugo Winckler – are in favour 'of the existence of a god called dwd in an-
cient Palestine', 666 however, dwd is rather an epithet, "the beloved", than a personal name.667
Lemche and Thompson,668 furthermore, argue that there is no space for an historical United
Monarchy or for their kings as presented in the biblical narratives, set in 'an imaginary world
of long ago that never existed as such'. 669
Ehrlich670 denotes that the so-called maximalists interpret the phrase dwdtyb as a referral to
the dynasty of David, while the minimalists read it as an allusion to a temple of Yahweh, the
Beloved. Although David is not the most obvious choice as referent in the Tel Dan
Kingdom of Israel sharing a common theme of a victory over the Israelite king. According to a widespread con-
sensus, dwd is not a reference to David, the son of Jesse.
662
Cryer 1994:3-4, 14-15.
663
Cryer 1994:15.
664
Lemche & Thompson 1994:9, 13-14.
665
See Cryer (1994:5-19) for his analysis of the epigraphical evidence.
666
Lemche & Thompson 1994:13.
667
Gods of the old Palestinian pantheon hardly ever carried personal names (Lemche & Thompson 1994:14).
668
669
670
Ehrlich 2001:63, 66.
87
inscription, it appears to be the most logical one. David's memory, as founder of the later Ju-
dean dynasty, was kept alive in the realm of legend.
2.14.5 Papyri from and a Jewish temple at Elephantine

The early fortified city of Elephantine – well known for important papyri discovered there –
was situated on an island in the Nile River, opposite the ancient village of Syene. 671 It was
the southernmost city of Egypt and known as a military stronghold and trade centre. It held
the seat for the royal officials responsible for the important ivory trade from Nubia. 672 The
name Elephantine is thus probably a reflection on this ivory trade. 673 Granite from the denot-
ed region was transported to the South. The Nubian country was recorded for the first time
during the Third Dynasty.674 Excavations at Elephantine revealed tombs of royal officials,
two Egyptian temples, a temple for the city god Khnum,675 as well as a Jewish military colony
and Jewish temple from Persian times. The papyrus scroll 676 was the main material in Egypt
on which sacred and secular matters were written. Although not the most abundant, the island
of Elephantine produced papyri texts and documents in no less than seven languages and
scripts. As from 1815 individual pieces of documents from Elephantine appeared at various
places and in the hands of different people. Major collections of papyri and ostraca 677 are
now mainly in Cairo, London, Europe and Brooklyn. 678 The first fifth century BC Aramaic
papyri – historically the most significant of all the Aramaic documents – were discovered in
671
Modern Aswan. As Elephantine, mainland Syene was a fort forming a geological, ethnic and political border.
It was valued in the whole of Egypt for its red granite that was utilised for building blocks and the manufacturing
of statues and sarcophagi (Porten 1996:xi, 1).
672
Also known as Ethiopia. The country is mentioned the first time in the Hebrew Bible as Cush (Gn 2:13). In
ancient times it was known as Nubia. It lies between the second and fourth cataracts in the Nile Valley. Apart
from ivory, it also supplied Egypt with ebony, spices and slaves. By the time of the Middle Kingdom [2040-
1782 BC] the Egyptians conquered the Nubians and began to capitalise their gold mines. The Greeks and Ro-
mans called it Aithiopia (Negev & Gibson 2001:169).
673
Elephantine was locally known as Yeb. The name Elephantine is derived from the Greek word for elephant.
The designation could either be a reference to the ivory trade or it could have been inspired by the surrounding
large smooth black rocks. In the river near the island these boulders resemble bathing elephants (Rosenberg
2004:6).
674
The Third Dynasty, dated 2686-2613 BC, commenced with the Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) in Egypt. The
rulers of the Third Dynasty were: Sanakhte, Djoser, Sekhemkhet, Khaba and Huni. Djoser (2668-2649 BC) is
well known for the Step Pyramid at Saqqara (Clayton 1994:30-37).
675
This temple dated from the period of Alexander the Great [334-323 BC] (Negev & Gibson 2001:156).
Khnum, known in Greek as Khnoumis, was a god of the cataract-region. He was a creation god – portrayed as a
"ram-headed man with long wavy horns" – who fashioned men and gods on his potter's wheel. He symbolised
the Nile, which fertilised the earth. His main sanctuary was on Elephantine (Guirand 1996:37).
676
The papyrus reed grew in abundance in the Nile marshes of ancient Lower Egypt. It was a common writing
material from as early as the third millennium BC and continued to be in use into the first millennium AD. Thin
strips of inner papyrus stalk were laid vertically and the following layer placed horizontally on top of it. An ad-
hesive and pressure were applied to bond them together as a sheet. It was then dried and polished. Papyri were
also exported from Egypt for many centuries (Trever 1962:649).
677
See § 2.14.2, footnote on ostraca.
678
For a detailed discussion of the recovery of the documents at Elephantine and Syene, see Porten (1996:1-27).
88
1907. Unfortunately the site and mode of burial of the hundreds of papyri on Elephantine are
unknown. It is, however, known that they lay in close proximity to each other. Regrettably –
apart from the Aramaic papyri – the different documents became disassociated from Elephan-
tine.679 A large number of the Elephantine papyri are legal texts. Most of these texts are from
the archives of two families, namely from Mahseiah bar Yedoniah and from Ananiah bar
Azariah, the latter probably being a temple servant "of Yahu" [YHW].680
The Elephantine papyri describe the lives of a group of Jewish mercenaries, initially on the
payroll of the Egyptians and later on that of the Persians. Their function was to guard the
southern border of Egypt at the first cataract of the Nile. According to the papyri, these mer-
cenaries and their families lived there during the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Their date of
arrival at Elephantine is unknown but, according to a papyrus source, 681 they were well estab-
lished by 525 BC. They had their own temple where sacrifices were offered to YHW.682 If
the Jews arrived at Elephantine during the reign of Manasseh in Judah, in the course of the
middle of the seventh century BC, to assist the Egyptians in their campaign against Nubia, it
would have given them ample time to establish a communal temple before 525 BC. 683 During
1997 a piece of tiling was excavated, duly identified as the floor of the Jewish temple and
confirmed by information in papyri documents. No altar was found but, possibly, it had been
standing on an area of the site that had been lost due to erosion or subsidence. In the Aramaic
documents the temple is described as an egora or shrine. This implies a plain roofed shrine
that could be entered by several doorways, 684 or an open-air altar.685 The measurements of the
temple were reminiscent of those of Solomon's temple in 1 Kings 6:2. Detailed descriptions
of the Jewish colony in a "fairly tight-knit complex around the temple" are given in the papy-
ri.686
679
Porten 1996:1, 2, 4, 10.
680
Kraeling 1962:84. For a discussion of Yahu, see § 4.3.13.
681
A papyrus, dated 407 BC, mentions that the Jewish temple stood on Elephantine before the Persian conquest
of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 BC. The papyrus states that Cambyses destroyed many temples but saved the
Jewish temple (Rosenberg 2004:6).
682
The well-known Passover Papyrus – dated 419 BC – sets out instructions by Darius II to the colony regarding
the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Rosenberg 2004:6).
683
The southern island of Elephantine was the principal cult centre of the Egyptian god Khnum (Willis 1993:39).
A temple for a Semitic god could only have been established there if ordained by the act of some pharaoh
(Kraeling 1962:84), and probably subsidised by the pharaoh (Porten 1996:18).
684
The papyri mention that 'the shrine had a roof of cedar wood and five stone-lined doorways with bronze hing-
es' (Rosenberg 2004:6).
685
The building – which was not the usual synagogue – was called an aguda (meeting place) and misgada (place
of worship) (Negev & Gibson 2001:156).
686
Rosenberg 2004:4, 6-7.
89
In some legal documents from Elephantine, as well as in certain Aramaic letters details can be
traced of the career of a "corrupt Persian official named Vidranga", 687 towards the end of the
fifth century BC.688 In 410 BC the priests of the Khnum temple on Elephantine solicited the
aid of Vidranga to ravage the Jewish temple. 689 Vidranga sent for his son Nefayan, 690 and the
Egyptian troops under his command, to return and destroy the Jewish temple. 691 Reasons for
this demand and destruction are not given. The explanation is probably complex, including
the idea that the priests of the Khnum temple were outraged that the Jews sacrificed animals
that were sacred to Khnum.692 It is unclear why the priests waited more than a hundred years
to "vent their anger".693 In an undated letter Vidranga is accused of 'receiving a large bribe
from the Khnum priesthood',694 while watching idly as the priests vandalised the temple. The
initial response of the Jewish community was liturgical – to put on sackcloth, fast and pray. 695
The post-disaster liturgy of the Elephantine community 'incorporates a ritual of cursing in a
manner deeply rooted in the curse-tradition of the ancient Near Eastern world.'696 In the light
of the Jewish community remaining loyal to the Persian crown throughout the fifth century,
Vidranga was regarded a traitor worthy of the traditional punishment for traitors.697
Three years after the destruction of the temple, Yedaniah 698 and the priests sent the famous
petition to Bagavahya – the then governor of Judah – for the rebuilding of the shrine that
687
Also known as Waidrang (Rosenberg 2004:7).
688
Lindenberger 2001:134.
689
Rosenberg 2004:7.
690
Nefayan had succeeded his father, Vidranga, as military commander at Syene (Lindenberger 2001:136).
691
692
Archaeological workers found a cemetery of rams on Elephantine. These animals were sacred to Khnum, the
ram-headed Egyptian god (Rosenberg 2004:8).
693
The priests were in the process of extending Khnum's temple that would have brought it directly opposite the
Jewish temple. The main thoroughfare of the island, the King's Highway, lay between the two temples. Pre-
sumably the priests got permission to restore the street – already dangerously blocked – by removing the Jewish
temple courtyard wall (Rosenberg 2004:8).
694
Lindenberger 2001:135. The raid on the temple was carried out by professional soldiers who razed the tem-
ple to the ground and carried away the gold and silver vessels.
695
Apparently the community 'abstained from sex, from anointing themselves with oil, and from drinking wine
for some three years' (Lindenberger 2001:137).
696
Lindenberger 2001:151. A passage from the "Vidranga section" in the Aramaic papyrus – see Lindenberger
(2001:137-152) for a detailed discussion – implies a curse and evil wish that 'Vidranga be done to death by vi-
cious animals' (Lindenberger 2001:148), or alternatively, that his corpse be devoured by animals. These brutal
types of curses were well known in the Ancient Near East. One clause in the "Vidranga text" can be freely trans-
lated as 'may the dogs tear out his guts from between his legs' (Lindenberger 2001:148-149). It is not clear
whether Vidranga died in 410 BC due to mutilation by animals. According to another papyrus text, Vidranga
was still alive in 399 BC (Lindenberger 2001:141). In ancient Israel punishment by devouring animals was a
well-known threat. It is, however, a misconception to read the passage about Vidranga and the dogs 'as a factual
narrative concerning his fate, and to try to interpret it against an imaginary background of Persian judicial proce-
dure' (Lindenberger 2001:149-150, 152). Related biblical curses are well known (Lindenberger 2001:150-151).
697
698
Yedaniah (Jedaniah), son of Gemariah, was leader of the Jewish community at the end of the fifth century
BC. Eleven documents from the communal archive recovered from Elephantine, were addressed to Yedaniah
(Porten 1996:77).
90
had been demolished by the Egyptian troops.699 The incident of the temple destruction is re-
counted at some length in the petition. 700 They received no help from the Temple in Jerusa-
lem. The Persian governor of Yehud (Judah) did, however, grant permission for the recon-
struction of the temple 'on condition that animal sacrifices would not be conducted there, only
meal offerings and incense'.701 It was furthermore stipulated that the courtyard wall be clear
of the King's Highway. The rebuilt temple was placed asymmetrically within its courtyard. 702
The petitions from Elephantine for assistance for the rebuilding of the temple were also sent
to Sanballat,703 governor of Samaria. The leaders of the Yahwistic colony in Elephantine re-
garded the Samarians as integral part of Israel. 704 Although the temple was rebuilt, the colony
disappeared shortly thereafter.705
The Jewish mercenaries from Elephantine probably originated from the former Northern
Kingdom of Israel. 706 Although these people from Elephantine called themselves Jews, it
meant for them something rather different than for their Yehudite contemporaries, such as Ez-
ra and Nehemiah. 707 In addition to the exclusion of the Samarian communities, the Elephan-
tine Jews were also excluded from participation in Judah, thus, in all likelihood, causing ten-
sion – even if not as significant as with the Samarians – between the Jerusalem/Yehudite and
Elephantine Jews. 708 The inhabitants of the seventh century BC Northern Israel consisted
mainly of Israelites and Aramaeans. They shared Aramaic as their common language and
699
This petition to Bagavahya, governor of Judah, was written and rewritten with care to ensure that the desired
objective was reached (Porten 1996:78). For an English translation of the Jedaniah archive (late fifth century
BC) including the correspondence on the temple rebuilding, see Porten (1996:125-151).
700
Lindenberger 2001:135-136.
701
Rosenberg 2004:8-9. The communal archive held no written reply on the petition, but indeed a "memoran-
dum of instruction" jointly issued by Bagavahya, governor of Judah, and Delaiah, son of Sanballat – governor of
Samaria and enemy of Nehemiah (Porten 1996:78-79).
702
Rosenberg 2004:9. For an architectural description of the Jewish temple at Elephantine and a comparison to
the Israelite temple tradition, see Rosenberg (2004:10-12).
703
In the letter from Elephantine, dated the seventeenth year of the Persian king Darius II, Sanballat is referred to
as "governor of Samaria". He was the main opponent of Nehemiah in the latter's efforts to rebuild the walls of
post-exilic Jerusalem (Dahlberg 1962c:210). According to Kraeling (1962:84), one of the letters was addressed
to Bagoas, governor of Yehud, mentioning Sanballat and Johanan, the high priest. Bagoas's intervention is peti-
tioned for the restoration of the Yahu-temple. The letter received no direct reply, but a recommendation for the
restoration – on certain conditions – was made.
704
Ben Zvi 1995:142.
705
Porten 1996:18.
706
Rosenberg 2004:12. After the death of Josiah in 609 BC, Judah as well as the former Northern Kingdom,
came under the rule of Egypt (2 Ki 23:33-34). Jewish soldiers were now fighting in Babylonia and elsewhere
under Egyptian instruction. These Jewish troops could possibly have been taken – forcibly or voluntarily – to
serve in Egypt. When setting up their shrine in Elephantine, these people from Israel would probably be build-
ing it on the lines of the Solomonic Temple and possibly erect a shrine in Egypt in defiance of Josiah's centrali-
sation in 622 BC (Rosenberg 2004:12).
707
These Jews had rather more in common with the opponents of Ezra and Nehemiah (Lindenberger 2001:154).
708
Ben Zvi 1995:141.
91
worshipped a multitude of deities, including Anat-Bethel,709 Yahweh or Yahu, and presumably
Anat-Yahu. Northern Israel's religious pluralism was carried over to fifth century BC Ele-
phantine and Syene. 710 The Jews of Elephantine were in many ways 'a syncretistic, non-
traditional community'. 711
2.14.6 Solomonic Temple: a comparison

The First Temple, or Solomonic Temple, had been erected – according to biblical traditions712
– in Jerusalem, and is dated ca 968 BC. 713 David conceived the idea of a "House for God".
He provided the necessary materials and gave instructions for the building of the Temple, but
the actual work only started during Solomon's reign. 714 The construction of the Temple took
seven and a half years. No tangible remains of this temple have yet been found. 715 Roberts716
explains that the 'Zion tradition with its old theological concept of Yahweh as founder of Je-
rusalem and its temple' influenced Isaiah's choice of imagery in Isaiah 28:16. Yahweh is de-
scribed as builder of Zion in various psalms. 717 The tradition of the stability of the Temple
had in some degree its origin in the solidly-built physical Temple. According to Isaiah, the
security of Jerusalem was dependent on the presence of Yahweh in the city. 718 Cosmic di-
mensions attributed to temples and cities transmit the spatial grandeur thereof. 'A god of
cosmic size is omnipotent, omnipresent, and reigns for eternity.' 719 The exaggerated meas-
urements of the structures in the courtyard of the Solomonic Temple suggest Yahweh's trium-
phant enthronement.720 Yahweh is frequently portrayed in the Psalms as the "generous" host
who dwells in Zion, purifies the Temple and welcomes the Temple visitor into his fellow-
ship. 721
709
See § 3.3 on, inter alia, Anat, and § 4.3.13 on Anat-Bethel and Anat-Yahu.
710
Van der Toorn 1992:95. For a discussion of the syncretistic religious practices of the Elephantine Jews, see
§ 4.3.13.
711
712
The descriptions in the Hebrew Bible of the building of the First Temple do not explicitly mention that it was
erected in Jerusalem. There are only a few direct references to the "Temple in Jerusalem", namely in Ezra 5:14,
15; 6:5, Psalm 68:29 and Daniel 5:2, 3, while implicit references are found in Psalm 79:1; Isaiah 44:28 and Jer-
emiah 24:1.
713
The foundation of the Temple was laid in Solomon's fourth year of reign (1 Ki 6:1, 37), being from the month
Tishri 968 BC to the end of the month Elul 967 BC (Finegan 1998:249).
714
2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Kings 8:17-19; 1 Chronicles 22:1-19; 28:1-29:9.
715
716
Roberts 1987:39.
717
Psalms 78:68-69; 102:16; 147:2.
718
Roberts 1987:39, 45. Explicit and implicit references in Isaiah are: Isaiah 2:2-3; 14:32; 18:7; 24:23; 25:10;
26:21; 27:13; 28:16; 36:20; 37:10; 49:14; 51:3; 52:8.
719
Bloch-Smith 1994:21.
720
721
Keel 1978:192, 195. Psalms 14:7; 20:3; 24:3-5; 36:9; 42:2-3; 51:18-19; 53:6; 63:1-3; 65:1-4; 84:10; 87:5;
99:2; 102:21-22; 128:5; 134:3.
92
No agreement has been reached as yet amongst scholars regarding the architectural origins
and reconstruction of the plan of the Solomonic Temple. The description of the Temple in the
Hebrew Bible is inconclusive and complicated. Although it has been disputed by some schol-
ars, the assumption is that the Temple consisted of three adjoining rooms. 722 The temple at
Tell Tayinât723 in northern Syria – which was built one or two centuries after the Solomonic
Temple – is also based on the concept of three adjoining rooms 724 and is probably the finest
architectural parallel of the Solomonic Temple. 725 A temple at ‛Ain-Dar‛a – not far from Tell
Tayinât – was likewise constructed according to the Phoenician tripartite plan with two enor-
mous columns alongside the entrance. The entrance was, furthermore, guarded by huge lions,
cherubs and stylised palms. The goddess Ishtar,726 who inhabited the temple, was presented
in a superhuman size. 727 Most other temple buildings from Palestine and Syria have only one
room, the cella, incorporating a niche for the goddess's statue. Although the traditional de-
scription of the Temple knew only one room – "the House of Yahweh"728 – it was in all likeli-
hood a tripartial structure. Nonetheless, in its design, the Solomonic Temple was unequalled.
Parallels to the basic plan of a broad room and central niche for the main cult object opposite
the entrance were found in fourteenth and thirteenth century BC shrines, such as at Hazor, as
well as at the Egyptian miners' temple at Timnah, dated thirteenth to twelfth century BC. 729
The Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem and also the temples at Dan and Bethel were national
shrines and the focus of national pilgrimages. 730 A pilgrimage was a paradigm for Israel to
express their idea of "returning home". Pilgrimage motifs illustrated the relations between
their ancestors and their God.731
722
The three rooms were: the ~lwa (porch: 1 Ki 6:3), the lkyh (main room or entrance of the Temple: 1 Ki
6:33) and the rybd or ~yXdqh (Holy of Holies) (2 Ki 8:6) (Negev & Gibson 2001:498-499). The word rybd is
probably adopted from Canaanite-Phoenician. The original meaning of the word was "shrine" and therefore it
was built as an inner sanctuary, the most holy place (Aharoni 1973:7). The word rybd is derived from a verb
meaning to "be behind", therefore the translation "inner sanctuary". There is no certainty whether the rybd and
lkyh were separated by a curtain. 2 Chronicles 3:14 refers to a veil (curtain), while 1 Kings 6:31 specifies doors
of olive wood (Van der Woude 1986:378).
723
An Iron Age temple was excavated at Tell Tayinât, which is in the Antioch Valley of modern south-east Tur-
key. This temple is alongside a royal palace (Kenyon 1987:97).
724
Aharoni 1973:1.
725
Kenyon 1987:97.
726
See § 3.4 and footnotes on Ishtar in § 2.3 and § 2.4.
727
728
The lkyh of Yahweh; 1 Samuel 1:9.
729
Aharoni 1973:6-8. See § 2.14.1 on "Egyptian miners' temple".
730
Temples at Dan and Bethel were erected by Jeroboam I (1 Ki 12:28-30) (Smith 1997:73); Jeroboam, first king
of Israel in the Divided Kingdom, dated 931/30 – 910/09 (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
731
Smith 1997:73,138.
93
Dever732 indicates that 'almost every detail of the sometimes enigmatic descriptions of the
Solomonic Temple in 1 Kings 6-9 can now be directly illustrated by reference to actual
Bronze Age and Iron Age temples and their furnishings elsewhere in the southern Levant'. He
is, furthermore, of the opinion that it would not have been possible at a later stage for a writer,
who had never seen the Temple, to give such detailed and accurate descriptions. Although
Egypt and Mesopotamia undoubtedly had indirect influences on the Temple, the biblical ac-
count clearly states that it was built by Phoenician architects and artisans with the help of pre-
dominantly unskilled workers from Israel. 733 Several elements of the Solomonic Temple
were also found in the ninth century BC Canaanite-Phoenician style temple at ‛Ain-Dar‛a in
northern Syria.734 Features in the Solomonic Temple, such as the "brazen sea" 735 standing
upon twelve oxen736 resembled the world-ocean as in Marduk's737 temple in Babylon. Like-
wise, the shewbread 738 in the outer chamber echoed the food placed on an altar, dedicated to
the god, or gods – such as 'cakes for the queen of heaven';739 the horses and chariots – devoted
to the sun740 – at the entrance of the Temple reminded of Shamash.741 This reference to
"horses and chariots of the sun" is clearly an allusion to solar and astral worship – most likely
732
Dever 1997b:302.
733
1 Kings 5:1-12; 7:13-14; 2 Chronicles 2.
734
Features of the Solomonic Temple and its parallels in various sanctuaries in the southern Levant are discussed
in detail by Bloch-Smith (1994:18-27). For each one of the objects in the outer courtyard of the Temple – as
described in 1 Kings 7 – archaeological parallels have been cited. For instance, the two freestanding pillars bor-
dering the porch entrance – which are generally accepted to attest to Yahweh's presence and power – have recent-
ly been interpreted as mythological "trees of life", symbolising the residing God. At, inter alia, the Middle
Bronze Age Shechem Migdal Temple and the Iron Age Tell Tayinât Temple, comparable columns or twbcm
have been found (Smith 1997:81-82). Furthermore, the ark which was placed in the rybd – although not depict-
ed as a seat – reminded of the distinctive empty throne of the Aegean cult which may have been a familiar char-
acteristic in veneration (Bury et al 1925:427). The cult niche of the rybd contained only a "vacant throne"
which symbolised the presence of the divinity. There was no representation as such of the deity (Smith
1997:86). The accompanying cherubim (1 Ki 6:23-28) resembled sacred guardians elsewhere, such as at temples
in Mesopotamia (Bury et al 1925:427). The Temple walls and doors were covered with cherubim, trees and
blossoms. The cherubim were composite creatures of super intelligence and physical abilities, they were winged
and of an unspecified gender. In contrast, the Egyptian sphinxes and Mesopotamian cherubim could be either
male or female, winged or non-winged (Smith 1997:88). The lion-motif (1 Kings 7:29) was a familiar theme in
Hittite and North Syrian iconography (Smith 1997:81-103) and (Bury et al 1925:427-429).
735
'Sea of cast metal' (1 Ki 7:23).
736
1 Kings 7:23-26.
737
In the Babylonian creation myth the focus is on Marduk, god of Babylon and the greatest of all gods. In a
union of the sweet-water ocean (Apsu) and the salt-water ocean (Tiamat) – when nothing else existed – a succes-
sion of gods emerged, culminating in the great gods Anu and Ea, who begot Marduk. In a conflict among the
gods, Marduk is finally chosen by the pantheon as the king of the gods. He defeats and kills Tiamat, dividing
her body in two to shape the sky and the earth (Willis 1993:62).
738
Bread of the Presence (1 Ki 7:48).
739
Jeremiah 7:18; this could be a reference to Ishtar (see § 3.4), but also possibly to Asherah.
740
2 Kings 23:11.
741
Bury et al 1925:427-428. Shamash, the Babylonian solar god, also regarded as god of justice and divination.
He made his way into the sky every morning, climbing the mountain up to the highest point. During the night he
journeyed through the depths of the earth (Storm 2001:72). Luminous rays emitted from his shoulders (Guirand
1996:57). See also footnote in § 2.4.
94
with a Canaanite origin. 742 The Phoenicians – Ba‛al worshippers – were descendants of the
Canaanites. 743 Therefore, it seems likely that the Temple, built under the influence of the
Phoenicians, was actually a Canaanite temple. Regarding the construction and contents,
analogies have also been found in southern Arabia, Crete and Cyprus. 744 The Chronicler's
description of the Temple, and the miscellaneous items connected to it, is an exaggeration of
the figures in 1 Kings.745
The traditional Israelite sanctuary was an 'inheritance of the period of the Judges'.746 The pro-
portions of the tenth century BC Yahwistic sanctuary at Arad and the descriptions of the Tab-
ernacle are identical, exhibiting a striking similarity between these two sanctuaries. This, in
turn, establishes a link between the Solomonic Temple and the Arad sanctuary.747 'It seems,
therefore, that the tradition of the early Israelite sanctuary has been preserved in the descrip-
tion of the Tabernacle.'748 The apparent contradictory description of the Solomonic Temple
was probably with the intention to use the traditional terminology of the old sanctuary dressed
in its new architecture.749
In the Hebrew Bible the various terms for "temple" and the word hmb seem to be in opposi-
tion to one another. The term "temple" usually refers to the Temple in Jerusalem, while hmb
mostly indicates an apostate Israelite or a Canaanite place of worship. Although hmb has
generally been equated with a "high place" by scholars, the Hebrew Bible only periodically
alludes the term to an elevated spot.750 De Vaux, 751 however, indicates that some, and maybe
even many, twmb stood on the Palestinian heights. There were even twmb at the gate of Jeru-
salem, 752 in the cities753 and in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom. 754
742
See footnote in § 2.13, subtitle "Horse figurines", regarding "horses and chariots of the sun".
743
Dever 2005:277-278.
744
Bury et al 1925:427.
745
Stinespring 1962:538, 540.
746
Aharoni 1973:6.
747
Aharoni 1973:3-4. See also discussion in § 2.14.1.
748
Aharoni 1973:7.
749
Aharoni 1973:7.
750
Catron 1995:150. See also § 2.14.1 regarding hmb.
751
De Vaux 1965:284.
752
2 Kings 23:8.
753
2 Kings 17:29.
754
Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35. The Valley of Ben-Hinnom was reached from the "potsherd gate" in the Jerusalem
wall and is generally identified with the Wadi er-Rababi. From there it turns sharply in the direction of the Ki-
dron Valley. The Hebrew Bible repeatedly mentions sacrifices of children, close to the junction of the Hinnom
and Kidron valleys at the place called Topheth in honour of Molech (2 Ki 23:10; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jr 32:35)
(Barrois 1962a:606). Molech, also known as Moloch, a deity to whom human sacrifice was made, is probably
identical with Milcom, the Ammonite national god (Gray 1962b:422). The name Topheth, originally derived
from an Aramaic word, initially meant a "hearth" or "fireplace". It is unclear whether these practices of human
sacrifice were limited to foreign cults or whether it was also a corrupted form of Yahwism (Barrois 1962b:673).
95
The Temple was part of a group of royal buildings, which, in total took twenty years to com-
plete.755 For this reason, scholars, in some instances, refer to the Temple as the royal chapel.
Apart from the large amount of stonework and woodwork, a craftsman was needed for the
bronze artistry. Solomon hired a certain Hiram of Tyre 756 for this commission. In the course
of time, treasure was taken from the Temple to pay indemnity or other fees to rival states.
Invading armies plundered the Temple, carrying the treasures off to their own countries. In
the year 586 BC the First Temple was completely plundered and then burned along with most
of the rest of the city. 757 'The Solomonic Temple was no doubt a potent symbol. … . It repre-
sented an ideal forced upon the public.'758
2.15 Résumé and conclusion

759
Bartlett asks the question 'what has archaeology to do with the Bible?' They are two differ-
ent and separate disciplines that both need interpreting. Artefacts are products of human his-
tory. The Hebrew Bible is a product written by human hands; written by scribes with varied
skills; the contents are of varied origins consisting of a variation of genres, including a history
that met the authors' own political or religious agenda. Dever 760 points out that surviving arte-
facts are the best indication of 'a lost reality – folk religion in ancient Israel'. Biblical texts
transmit 'theoretical evidence of beliefs,'761 therefore these texts could be considered merely
as secondary sources. He contends that 'only archaeology and not canonical texts can reveal
that reality'762 – the reality of folk religion. One cannot but agree with Dever's aforemen-
tioned point of view that archaeology is in essence the support for any theoretical biblical re-
search. Archaeology includes different disciplines that can be divided mainly into field ar-
chaeology and historical data – the latter drawn from ancient written sources, which include
inscriptions pertaining to words or phrases found in the text of the Hebrew Bible. 763 Apart
from recorded historical information the Hebrew Bible incorporates 'testimonies from ancient
Israel about religion and belief'. 764 Archaeological finds, therefore, may be identified with
data in the Hebrew Bible that could enhance our understanding of the ancient Israelite
755
1 Kings 7:1-12; 9:10.
756
1 Kings 7:13-14; 2 Chronicles 2:13-14. Solomon hired a man from Tyre by the name of Hiram – not the king
Hiram of Tyre – also known as Huram-abi. This hireling was a man of great artistic skill, and, as his mother was
from Naphtali or Dan, he was half Israelite and half Tyrian (Stinespring 1962:537).
757
Stinespring 1962:537-539.
758
Dever 2005:279.
759
Bartlett 1997:1,13.
760
Dever 2005:12.
761
Dever 2005:12.
762
Dever 2005:43.
763
Vriezen 2001:45. See, inter alia, inscriptions found at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud (§ 2.9 and § 4.3.9).
764
Vriezen 2001:47.
96
religion. 765 A basic problem for archaeologists is fragmentary evidence. Notwithstanding the
enormous volume of archaeological data that has been collected, it encompasses but only a
small fraction of the total evidence at a specific site. The biblical researcher should take both
the underlying structure of the biblical narrative and the archaeology of the biblical world into
consideration. 766
Boshoff767 warns that 'archaeology can be misused for doubtful purposes' – due to inadequate
applicable knowledge. This state of affairs is worsened by the fact that much of the "wealth"
of assembled archaeological information is still unpublished. Implications of finds from ma-
jor sites should become part of everyday debates. Scholars can only apply, in their fields of
research, results pertaining to excavated matter after publication and interpretation thereof by
archaeologists. Information should be made available also to the general public, and not only
to specialist archaeologists or historians. Fortunately, a large number of ancient texts – un-
covered at various sites over a wide region of the Near East – are currently being published.
Archaeological finds and excavated sites, as well as the interpretation thereof, undeniably
have an impact on the understanding of the contents of the Hebrew Bible – and particularly of
the Israelite nation and its religion. Biblical scholars should, therefore, 'take the results of ar-
chaeological research seriously'. 768 Archaeologists should, likewise, realise the responsibility
to publish finds as soon as possible, as unpublished material has no value for other partici-
pants in the field.769
More sophisticated archaeological techniques – such as controlled procedures of stratigraphi-

cal770 excavation – have been developed during the course of the past century. 771 At the same
time various technologies have been advanced to assist the archaeologist in the interpretation
of his data. Scientific testing of mortar and plaster by the application of radiocarbon dating
techniques has the potential to determine the age of archaeological structures; however, there
are limitations regarding the cost involved, as well as the age and locality of the structure
from where the sample was collected. Rech772 mentions that radiocarbon dating could change
the chronology of the Ancient Near East. The science of palynology, referred to as "new ar-
chaeology", has only relatively recently been applied to excavated matter. Nonetheless, it has
765
Vriezen 2001:47.
766
Brandfon 1988:54, 59.
767
Boshoff 2001:372.
768
Boshoff 2001:387.
769
Boshoff 2001:371-373, 382, 387.
770
See footnote in § 2.12 on "stratigraphy".
771
Miller 1988:11.
772
Rech 2004:212.
97
become one of the most significant techniques in the reconstruction of the palaeo-
environment. Reliable information furnished by remote sensing could be successfully applied
to archaeological and ethnographic 773 explorations. The introduction of ethnographic data
has, according to Glock,774 'two archaeological consequences for the research design', namely
that the 'chronological framework is reduced to a fine-line grid' and, secondly, that 'research
topics emphasize continuity in a sociological context'. It likewise increases 'the archaeolo-
gist's vision of the explanatory task', as well as his 'capability to find probable interpretations
by making visible the connections between people and place, a cultural tradition and its envi-
ronment'.775 In comparison with 'older large-scale tell excavations', archaeologists lately tend
to concentrate on matters such as 'survey and settlement pattern analysis'. 776
The discovery of literally thousands of inscribed tablets from the archives of Ebla, Mari and
Ugarit has unlocked a wealth of new information. At Ebla a very ancient North-West Semitic
language has been identified, classified by Pettinato777 as Paleo-Canaanite. Texts with a
mythological background refer to several Mesopotamian deities; correspondence between
these deities and the Syrian divinities imply a syncretism between the cultures of Ebla and
Mesopotamia. The word or name Ya(w), which could be a hypocoristicon, might be an indi-
cation of a Ya-related deity at Ebla. The hitherto unknown cuneiform writing from Ugarit re-
vealed an alphabetical script. The Ugaritic language – close to biblical Hebrew, although be-
longing to the Canaanite family – is significant for the research on the development of the
Canaanite script. Substantial segments of legendary narratives and mythological and ritual
texts indicate that – although often referred to as "foreign gods" in the Hebrew Bible – the Is-
raelite people were well acquainted with the Canaanite gods and their cults. These texts from
Ugarit provide essential information clarifying aspects of Israelite syncretism.
Prophetic texts found in the Mari archives play a significant role in the determination of the
origin of Ancient Near Eastern and biblical prophecy. Other texts from these archives men-
tion the habiru and the tribe of the Benjaminites. Scholars link both these groups to the early
Hebrews. Movements of nomadic peoples in the vicinity of Mari – some with names corre-
sponding to those of the patriarchs – afford information on the Patriarchal Age. The Amarna
Letters – fourteenth century BC Egyptian correspondence with Palestinian vassals – also refer
773
See footnote on "ethnography" in § 2.2 under the subtitle "Remote sensing".
774
Glock 1983:173.
775
Glock 1983:178.
776
Dever 1988:342.
777
See Pettinato 1976 and 1980.
98
to, inter alia, the habiru, a name that figures prominently in these letters. Some of the Ancient
Near Eastern nations refer to the habiru as a group of nomads or mercenaries who stood out-
side the organised community, and, according to the Amarna Letters, were disruptive ele-
ments destabilising the social order in Canaan. Mendenhall, 778 and some other scholars, pos-
tulate the emergence of Israel from movements such as the habiru. It is noteworthy that texts
referring to the habiru were compiled as far west as Egypt, and as far east as the north-eastern
region of Syria/Mesopotamia – albeit three to four centuries removed. The Egyptian Victory
Stele, or Merenptah Stele – dated the latter half of the second millennium BC – contains the
oldest known reference to "Israel", celebrating Merenptah's victory over "Israel". Consensus
has not been reached by scholars whether the word "Israel" in the inscription refers to a "peo-
ple" or a "nation". Lemche 779 doubts whether the group referred to as "Israel" had any con-
nection with the habiru.
The Karnak reliefs, illustrating the Canaanite campaign of Merenptah, have the oldest known
depiction of Israelites among the portrayals on the reliefs. In addition, these reliefs refer to
the "Land of the Shasu", which – according to Rainey780 – could assist in establishing the
origin of Israel. Papyrus Anastasi VI – dated the thirteenth to twelfth century BC – alludes to
the inhabitants of Edom as the Shasu. Additional Egyptian evidence connects the "Land of
the Shosu" [Shasu] and Mount Seir. Although the word shosu – attested in Ugaritic – means
robber, it does not imply that all Shasu were bandits. De Moor781 indicates that the Shasu re-
sembled the habiru in many respects; it is thus unlikely that two different groups are intimat-
ed. An Egyptian Topographical List denotes Yhw of the "Land of the Shasu". The Shasu,
placed in southern Transjordan, are linked to Seir and Edom, therefore the origin of Yahweh
worship could be searched among the Shasu of Edom. It is significant that certain poetic texts
in the Hebrew Bible denote Yahweh as coming forth from the South, 782 from Teman,783 from
Mount Paran,784 from Sinai785 and from Seir 786 – all of which are in the South. Habakkuk 3:7
indicates Yahweh's presence in Midian – in the southern Transjordan, the region connected to
Yahweh by the Kenite hypothesis. 787
778
See § 7.4 for a brief discussion of, inter alia, Mendenhall's hypothesis.
779
Lemche 1988:103.
780
Rainey 2001:68-69.
781
De Moor 1997:117, 123.
782
Zechariah 9:14.
783
Habakkuk 3:3.
784
Deuteronomy 33:2; Habakkuk 3:3.
785
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:5.
786
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4.
787
See discussion in § 5.2 and § 5.3.
99
Numerous artefacts related to Israelite folk religion have been excavated. Of these, an array
of pillar figurines – popularly known as Astartes – have been discovered at many Israelite
sites. Figurines were found widely distributed, especially at seventh century BC sites, indicat-
ing their popularity at that time. The commonplace pillar figurines probably belonged to in-
dividual veneration, rather than to popular communal worship. Other cult objects that have
been excavated ostensibly at Israelite sites are, inter alia, the bull figurine – reminiscent of the
Canaanite deities El and Ba‛al – horse figurines associated with solar worship, and the
Lachish ewer depicting ’Elat/’ašērâ with a stylised tree symbolising fertility. These are but a
few examples of cult objects linked to Israelite folk religion. Scholars have reached consen-
sus that this was a syncretistic-type religion.
Iconographic symbols on two cult stands found at Taanach are of particular importance. The-
se two quadrangular stands have four and five tiers, respectively. The tiers are lavishly deco-
rated with, inter alia, lions, winged sphinxes and other composite mythological figures. An
important aspect of the stand with four tiers is the likely portrayal of Asherah, and the sugges-
tion of the "invisible Deity" – Yahweh – in the vacant space between two cherubim in the cen-
tre of the one register. Asherah is, furthermore, linked to the sacred life-giving tree on anoth-
er tier. The top tier consists of, inter alia, an equid and a winged sun-disc; numerous biblical
references portray Yahweh as a Solar Deity – the winged sun-disc therefore being his symbol.
This particular Taanach cult stand thus corroborates the theory – held by many scholars – that
the goddess Asherah was worshipped as consort of Yahweh during the time of the Monarchy.
Inscriptions and graffiti discovered at the ninth century BC Kuntillet ‛Ajrud caravanserai and
at the eighth century BC burial cave at Khirbet ’el-Qom support the thesis that Asherah was
regarded as consort of Yahweh, and not merely as a sacred tree or hbcm.
Inscriptions in the ancient Hebrew script – dated approximately the sixth century BC – have
been discovered in a burial cave at Khirbet Beit Lei. Biblical scholars have proposed that the-
se inscriptions be read as veneration to Yahweh. Among the most important finds are two sil-
ver plaques recovered at Ketef Hinnom, containing an alternate version of the Priestly Bene-
diction in Numbers 6:24-26. Scholars agree that these plaques 'preserve the earliest known
citation of biblical texts',788 furnishing biblical research with the earliest examples of confes-
sional statements regarding Yahweh.789
788
789
100
Various temples, sanctuaries and shrines have been uncovered in Palestine, as well as twmb,
or high places. twbcm – regarded as objects of worship – are distinct features found at cult
sites. Although biblical texts do report on twbcm at a few sites – such as the anointment of a
local stone at Bethel – the cultic role thereof is not explicitly explained. More than one hbcm
at Arad implies the veneration of more than one god, while a triad of twbcm at Dan indicates
a triad of deities. Arad, an important city on the border of the eastern Negeb, has been linked
to the Kenites, a marginal nomadic tribe associated with copper mining, smelting and trade.
The Kenite hypothesis proposes that the Kenites and Midianites worshipped Yahweh before
Moses did. An inscription on an excavated ostracon at Tel Arad mentions the fortress Kinah
– not far from Arad – which is connected to the Kenites. A shrine at Arad – probably erected
by the Kenites – was central in the territory to serve the inhabitants of the eastern Negeb. A
characteristic Yahwistic tenth century BC temple at Arad – built by the Israelites – exhibits
remarkable similarity with descriptions of the Tabernacle, thereby linking this temple with the
Solomonic Temple. The latter reflects, in almost every detail, a direct influence of Ancient
Near Eastern sanctuaries – especially Canaanite temples. A main excavated feature at Tel
Beer-sheba is the horned altar. The significance of horns is unclear, but they seem to be asso-
ciated with deities and ancient deified kings. The cornerpieces – horns – of the Israelite altars
were ostensibly substitutes for the horns of a deity. Although there are opposing views re-
garding the historicity of Hezekiah's cult reforms, it is reasonably clear that both Arad and
Beer-sheba were subject to such reforms.
The city of Dan is notorious in the biblical text for the golden calf set up by Jeroboam I,
thereby establishing a sanctuary for the Northern Kingdom. A number of twbcm have been
excavated at Tel Dan, as well as twmb. An inscription found at the site – translated as a refer-
ence to the "House of David" – has caused a stir amongst scholars. No consensus has been
reached on this translation, which is totally rejected by some scholars. Should this translation
be correct, it would be a confirmation of Judah's dynastic name and the state of Israel.
Papyri from Elephantine – an island in the Nile River – has confirmed the existence of a sixth
to fifth century BC Jewish temple – that has been duly excavated – on this island. According
to a papyrus source, these Jews offered sacrifices to YHW. They were mercenaries, probably
originating from the former Northern Kingdom of Israel, where they worshipped a multitude
of deities, including Anat-Bethel, as well as Yahu [Yahweh] and presumably Anat-Yahu. The
religious pluralism of Northern Israel was carried over to Elephantine. Aramaic documents
101
from Elephantine refer to, inter alia, the 'priests of YHW the God', as well as an oath in the
name of Anat-Yahu.790
During the past decades a tendency has developed among archaeologists to specialise within
this discipline, concentrating primarily on Palestine as being relevant to biblical studies. 791
Dever792 visualises that –'through archaeology as a discipline and an interdisciplinary inquiry'
– the context of Iron Age Palestine could be reconstructed, thereby understanding Israelite
religion not only in the light of texts, but also in matters such as settlement patters, social
structure, political organisation and their level of technology. However, archaeology cannot,
as yet, 'comment on the political or religious ideology behind the emergence of ancient Is-
rael'.793 Both texts and artefacts – dealing respectively with beliefs and practice – are essen-
tial sources to comprehend Israel and its religion. 794
From this résumé it should be clear that the substantiation of my hypothesis could not be ac-
complished without my being acquainted with relevant archaeological discoveries and inter-
pretations, particularly considering that archaeological data are even now 'more extensive than
all the biblical texts put together'. 795 Dever796 points out that, according to revisionist ideolo-
gy, "ethnic identity" cannot be recognised in the archaeological record and, therefore, they
discount any reference to "early Israel". In contrast, virtually all archaeologists recognise and
characterise the multifarious Ancient Near Eastern nations – including the Israelites. Archae-
ologists continue on the assumption that material culture – generally speaking – reflects eth-
nicity. In addition hereto, Zevit 797 states that the different archaeologically-attested cult sites
and excavated artefacts have a complete impact on comprehending – as described by Zevit –
the syncretistic Israelite "religions". Although archaeology in Palestine 'has been preoccupied
with confirmation of ancient religion'798 it has hardly increased our perception of the cult of
ancient Israel.
790
See discussion in § 4.3.13.
791
Miller 1988:11.
792
Dever 1987:222.
793
Dever 1987:236.
794
Dever 2005:63.
795
Dever 2005:74.
796
Dever 1998a:46.
797
Zevit 2001:349. The variety of artefacts and archaeologically-attested cult sites has an effect on the percep-
tion of Israelite worship. Available data project a dynamic picture of the religion practised by the Israelites, al-
lowing – within Yahwism – veneration of other deities (Zevit 2001:349), hence Zevit's reference to 'Israelite
religions'.
798
Dever 1988:346.
102
As Fritz799 indicates, biblical archaeology initially regarded the Hebrew Bible as 'primary
source for the history of the ancient Near East', concerned with 'illustrating the biblical record'
archaeologically. As a result hereof numerous misinterpretations followed. Fortunately,
techniques improved and, as more research material became available, archaeology of the
Ancient Near East became a specialised science. Biblical archaeology became thus an auton-
omous discipline distinct from biblical criticism in both its approach and methods. Although
independent of other disciplines it can, and should, nevertheless, work in close relationship
with biblical studies and it is, therefore, in respect of this research, essential that I take cogni-
sance of relevant excavated matter.
As stated in the motivation for the inclusion of this chapter, I regard archaeological data of
paramount importance in my research on the development of the Yahwistic religion of the
Israelites. This study also incorporates the influence of the cults and deities of neighbouring
nations. Information on the latter has been acquired from archaeological data and therefore it
is logical that the following chapter should concentrate on matters pertaining to these deities
and their relevance to the God of Israel.
799
Fritz 1994:221.
103
CHAPTER 3
MYTHOLOGY, ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PANTHEONS

AND THE ISRAELITE RELIGION
3.1 Introduction
Data on the mythology of Ancient Near Eastern pantheons have been acquired from archaeo-
logical finds, particularly from inscriptions on excavated tablets, as indicated in the previous
chapter.
Myths are attempts of man to penetrate the unknown and are personifications of the uncon-
scious and preconscious processes describing man's awakening to the universe. When he en-
counters the unknown, man projects an archetypal 1 image which involves his instincts.2 Myth
can also be defined as a 'traditional narrative usually involving supernatural or imaginary per-
sons and often embodying popular ideas on natural or social phenomena'. 3 The mystery of the
coming into being of the universe is a central problem for all mythologies. 4 Myths narrate
origins in the primordial5 time6 and are developed to explain natural phenomena. 7 It is signif-
icant that the very nature of man – under varying circumstances and in different worlds – 'is
apt to hit upon similar explanations of the phenomena everywhere threatening and upholding
his life'. 8 Myths are also 'products of early philosophy, reflecting on the nature of the uni-
verse', or they could be political, modelled to unite different worshipping groups into one so-
cial or political structure.9 Although myths can operate as the basic structure of cultural sys-
tems and religious beliefs, some mythological literature acts as polemical vehicle for conten-
tious beliefs and views.10
At all times and under all circumstances myths have burgeoned throughout the inhabited
world.11 In essence, every society – be it past or present – has a mythology of some kind.12
1
Archetype: an original pattern or perfect example of which actual things are copies (Deist 1990:20). 'An arche-
type is a universal thought form or disposition to perceive the world in certain ways' (Naudé 1986:756).
2
Naudé 1986:754-757, 760.
3
Kruger 2001a:47-48.
4
Willis 1993:18.
5
Primordial: see relevant footnote in § 1.3.
6
Kruger 2001a:48.
7
Jay 1996:35.
8
Montcrieff 1994:2.
9
Robertson-Smith 1969:19.
10
Kruger 2001b:214.
11
Clayton 1990:7.
12
Jay 1996:1.
104
Symbols of mythology are instinctive creations of the psyche that have survived into modern
times. Strange rituals associated with primitive tribes, as well as with ancient civilisations,
have actually led people across those difficult "thresholds of transformation" concerning the
conscious and unconscious life. 13 Mythologies are stories that incorporate supernatural ele-
ments and that people believe.
A collection of myths is virtually always a component at the centre of a broader religion. As

cultures14 progress, mythologies grow and develop along with them, simultaneously adapting
from place to place.15 Myth 'exercised power over its cultural community', 16 and became a
device to create history.17 A collection of myths does not necessarily imply a chronology, and
although the order in which the events appear in the collection is incidental, it has no effect on
the overall message. There are, thus, in this regard clear implications for those who rely on
the chronology of the Hebrew Bible to trace the historical development of the Israelite cul-
ture.18 Myth may be used as propaganda 19 and some ancient anecdotes have been adapted for
political reasons. 20 Certain biblical narratives can be clarified – particularly concerning be-
liefs, customs and superstitions implicit therein21 – by comparison with the folklore 22 and lit-
erary parallels of neighbouring communities. Some myths may fulfil several functions at the
same time. 23
As myth cannot easily be separated from religion, anything associated with religion tends to
be regarded as myth, and not as history, therefore 'myths may serve as vital allies of reli-
gion'.24 At the same time myth may be a meaningful element in the political organisation of a
13
Clayton 1990:7, 9.
14
Culture is defined as 'a basic pattern of thought around which the symbolic systems develop' (Kunin 1995:19).
15
Jay 1996:1, 4, 8.
16
Kunin 1995:25.
17
That is, myth was a 'subjective and coherent articulation of past and present events' (Kunin 1995:41).
18
Kunin 1995:42.
19
As an example: the legend of Esther in the Hebrew Bible probably originated in the harems around a shrewd
woman and intrigue at the Persian court. The biblical version has been reshaped to elucidate the Purim festival
(Gaster 1969:xxxi).
20
As an example: the narrative of Ham, who looked upon Noah's nakedness (Gn 9:20-27), was written at a time
when Palestine was a vassal of Egypt who was regarded as a son of Ham (Gn 10:6). The story, likewise, signi-
fies the subjugation of Canaan – also a son of Ham – by the Israelites (Gaster 1969:xxxii).
21
Gaster 1969:xxxvii.
22
Folklore comprises those beliefs, customs, stories and sayings of a community that have been passed on from
one generation to another (Deist 1990:98). For example, the notion that the earlier inhabitants of Palestine were
giants pertains to the belief held by many people to account for megaliths (Gaster 1969:xxxvii).
23
Myths may function to: explain natural phenomena, control natural forces (by making sacrifices influencing
the gods), bind a clan or tribe or nation together, record a historical event of a tribe or nation in a mythologised
form, give descriptions of landmarks, justify a social structure, and control people (Jay 1996:3-4).
24
Kruger 2001a:52.
105
society, by, for example, justifying the authority of elders or chieftains. 25 Yet, Dever 26 asks
the question whether morality, faith and the life of a religious community could be 'predicated
on myth'. He nonetheless indicates that the essence of folk religion is not orthodox theology,
but symbol, ritual and myth. 27 According to Vehse,28 myth is the obvious alternative to histo-
ry. The main purpose of historical myths is to transmit a message which is independent of
historical accuracy, but rather suggests how people thought about events that had happened.
Moye29 indicates that by the incorporation of independent mythical narratives with histori-
cised genealogies, history is created from myth. Kunin30 mentions that 'the historical ele-
ments within a body of myth are seen as only incidentally historical'. Myth and history can
co-exist; therefore the mythical nature of texts need not be affected by the potential historicity
of texts. There is interplay between the two. In the case of biblical texts, there is no structural
difference between "mythological" and "historical" texts. 'The biblical text provides both a
conscious and an unconscious framework for viewing reality.' 31
The Ancient Near Eastern concept of the world comprised of a mythical link between heaven
and earth and therefore between temple and cosmos – a link which thus played a meaningful
part in the 'larger mythical framework or worldview of the Ancient Near East.'32 It 'was not
perceived as merely a symbolical relationship, but as a real (or 'magical') connection.' 33 The
temple of the patron god was often looked upon as a replica of his heavenly temple. The king
was chosen by the patron god of the royal city. The royal complexes usually consisted of the
royal palace and garden, as well as the temple and had 'profound religious and cosmic signifi-
cance'34 due to the religious nature of kingship. Furthermore, any reference to a temple in
myths brought to mind multiple perceptions of which the "mythical link" was possibly the
most important. The interpretation of mythical motifs or myths in the Hebrew Bible should
therefore be taken seriously by the modern reader. 35
25
Kruger 2001b:227.
26
Dever 1997a:46.
27
Dever 2005:61.
28
Vehse 1995:440.
29
Moye 1990:598.
30
Kunin 1995:40.
31
Kunin 1995:44. For example: the narrative of Joseph (Gn 37-50) is a myth characterised by the doubling of
most – if not all – elements of the story, for example, Joseph dreams two dreams and the pharaoh and his servant
each dreams two dreams. This pattern of double structure serves to cloud the underlying [mythological] struc-
ture (Kunin 1995:135).
32
Van Dyk 2005:875.
33
Van Dyk 2005:877.
34
Van Dyk 2005:875.
35
Van Dyk 2005:872-873, 875, 877.
106
Narrated "sacred history" gives meaning to, and stabilises the chaos of human, or secular and
profane, existence. 36 Myth, ritual and social structure validate existence in society. Being
exposed to hostile environments, groups and communities are more likely to survive than in-
dividuals are.37 An epic describes a struggle between two groups.38 This encounter usually
entails a physical confrontation, where some cunning is exercised. A mythic epic involves the
conflict between two groups of deities. Creation is the result of such a combat. 39 In the Gen-
esis creation narratives a mythical background appears everywhere. It is widely acknowl-
edged that the elements and traditions in Genesis 1-11 are very similar to those in correspond-
ing Ancient Near Eastern myths. 40 These traditions cannot be treated differently from those
in the Hebrew Bible, even if the latter is monotheistic in contrast to the Ancient Near Eastern
polytheism. 41 Jason42 points out that the only examples of mythic epic that the biblical litera-
ture could be compared with are ancient written texts and, unfortunately, no in sito oral mate-
rial. On the other hand, 'mythologies are littered with symbolic references and objects'. 43 By
interpreting these symbols the deeper meaning behind a myth could be clarified. 44
Clans or tribes had their own gods and when two or more of these groups merged, their gods
were added to the collective pantheon. At the same time myths spread as tribes or nations
conquered new lands. It was therefore consequential that the early mythic structure of Sumer
and Babylon influenced those of other cultures,45 and in the same vein, cultural symbolic sys-
tems – that is, myth, ritual, kinship and social organisation – have a 'common underlying
structure'.46 With the emergence of Israelite tribes and the apparent movement of these tribes
from Mesopotamia in the east, through Syria and Palestine to Egypt in the west, it was inevi-
table that they were influenced by the various cultures and religions with which they had
36
Kruger 2001a:48.
37
Kunin 1995:23-24.
38
An epic describes a struggle between two clans, tribes or nations, as well as between classes of beings, such as
a conflict between divinities and human beings, or humans and monsters (Jason 1995:282). An epic is a long
poem or narrative recounting the achievements of a hero, or heroes (Hanks 1992:164).
39
Jason 1995:282. One of the most important creation myths is the Babylonian Enuma Elish. See footnote on
the Babylonian creation myth and Marduk in § 2.14.6. This epic has a definite political intent, as Marduk, deity
of Babylon, is elevated to the supreme god of Babylon (Van Reeth 1994:74).
40
Skinner 1930:52. Reference to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Genesis 2:10-14 clearly indicates that the
earthly paradise was in the region where these rivers flow. Therefore, it is inevitable that the myth took its shape
in Mesopotamia – watered by these two rivers – although it probably originated in a dry country like Palestine.
On the other hand, the account of the Flood is reminiscent of an alluvial country, such as the Euphrates Valley
(Skinner 1930:56). The numerous mythical elements in the biblical creation narratives are, in their own right, a
matter of research and shall, therefore, not be discussed in this thesis.
41
Kruger 2001a:50.
42
Jason 1995:284-285.
43
Jay 1996:16.
44
Jay 1996:16.
45
Jay 1996:10, 12, 23.
46
Kunin 1995:19.
107
made contact. Although the existence of a monotheistic Yahwistic faith since the time of the
patriarch Abraham is professed in the Hebrew Bible, general consensus has been reached by
scholars that these early tribes – and the later Israelite nation – practised a syncretistic-type
religion, particularly influenced by the Canaanite religion and mythologies. Walker47 indi-
cates that two forms of Yahwism were practised. In the Canaanite naturalistic semblance
Yahweh was identified with Asher, the moon god, whose consort's emblem – the asherah pole
– was placed alongside the altars for Yahweh. The other type of Yahwism was Mosaic and
ethical. This form of veneration was introduced into Palestine by those tribes under the influ-
ence of Moses. Since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts,48 which are unquestionably the most
important source of information on the Syro-Palestinian religions and pantheons, many as-
pects in the Hebrew Bible have been clarified. Canaanite deities were worshipped not only in
Syria-Palestine; their influence reached as far as Egypt.49
Mythology has been studied from antiquity to the extent of collecting and systematising all
traditional stories and commenting on them. Various ambiguous theories developed. 50 The
critical study of myths and its application to both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament
began as early as the time of the Church Fathers. They started to allegorise 51 what might be
seen as myths in the Bible. During the course of the nineteenth century the scientific study of
myths – including possible mythical material in the Hebrew Bible – developed rapidly. Some
results of these investigations indicated that many narratives were the products of a long pro-
cess of evolution of community traditions. Scholars were ultimately forced to 'reconsider the
relationship between mythology and biblical tradition'. 52 Despite research during the past two
hundred years, scholars have not been able to provide a satisfactory definition of myth. The
Myth-Ritual Theory was expounded by the Scottish scholar William Robertson Smith 53 in the
47
Walker 1958:262.
48
See § 2.8.
49
Asiatic workers – most likely brought as prisoners from Syria to Egypt and working mainly near Thebes and
Memphis – worshipped deities of the Canaanite pantheon. The influence emanating from these workers, in the
fourteenth to thirteenth century BC, probably resulted in some Canaanite deities being worshipped in Egyptian
temples. When compatible, the Canaanite deities later partly merged with the Egyptian deities. Similarly, as-
pects of Egyptian deities appeared in Canaan; a frequent example is the so-called Hathor wig (Hestrin 1991:55);
see also the footnote on Hathor in § 2.14.1.
50
Rose 1972:717. Collectors of mythologies are known as mythographers (Rose 1972:718). Mythography is
the representation of myths in painting or sculpture (Oxford University Press 1964b:587).
51
An allegory is a literary device – even a genre – 'that makes extensive use of figurative or symbolic language
to expound a subject or tell a story' (Deist 1990:8).
52
Oden 1992:946.
53
Robertson Smith was regarded as one of the foremost scholars of his generation. In his travels to Arabia, he
not only mastered Arabic – which he could speak fluently – but became intimately acquainted with the common
people. These influences played a role in the preparation for the Lectures on the Religion of the Semites which
was first published in 1889. He later became editor-in-chief of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Muilenburg
108
late nineteenth century. In his lectures on Semitic religion he declared 'it may be affirmed
with confidence that in almost every case the myth was derived from the ritual and not the
ritual from the myth'.54 Elicited from this theory is a definition offered by scholars during the
twentieth century that myths are traditional stories that originated from and were passed on in
a communal context. A French scholar, Lévi-Strauss, compared myth with language and mu-
sic. He suggested that, as phonemes 55 'only produce meaning in their interrelationships with
one another',56 the various elements in myth relate to one another. Evidence from Canaanite
myths discovered in Ugarit 57 persuaded Cross58 'of the bankruptcy of all attempts to prove that
Israelite religion is discontinuous with the religions of Israel's neighbors, and hence discon-
tinuous with a mythological tradition'. 59 A pattern discernible in a substantial amount of liter-
ature in the Hebrew Bible concerns the divine warrior.60 A combination of mythical and his-
torical traditions are, according to Cross, 61 characteristic of Israelite religion, as he states 'in
Israel, myth and history always stood in strong tension, myth serving primarily to give a cos-
mic dimension and transcendent meaning to the historical, rarely functioning to dissolve his-
tory.' In the light of decades of research, it is remarkable that some scholars refuse to pay at-
tention to the redefining of myth, on the assumption that the biblical must be firmly separated
from the non-biblical, in particular from the mythological world. 62
In conclusion, Droge63 mentions that Wolfgang Speyer 64 introduced the concept of "authentic
religious pseudepigraphy". This practice was widespread throughout the Ancient Near East,
as well as in Rome and Greece. Emanating from mythological sources, the author was repre-
sented as a deity, an angel or another mythological personality.
1969:5-8, 11). Apart from being 'a leading figure in the origins of modern biblical scholarship', Robertson Smith
was also 'a pioneer in the field of the History of Religions' (Anderson & Olyan 1991:7).
54
Robertson Smith 1969:18. Dever (2005:33) mentions that the Myth and Ritual School focused on the cult.
55
Phonemes are the basic sound units in language (Oden 1992:953).
56
Oden 1992:953.
57
See § 2.8.
58
F M Cross 1973. Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic.
59
Oden 1992:960.
60
For example: Psalms 29, 77, 89, 93; Isaiah 51:9-11.
61
Cross 1973:90.
62
Oden 1992:948, 951-953, 960.
63
Droge 2003:135.
64
Wolfgang Speyer, known as a leading expert on forgery in Mediterranean antiquity (Droge 2003:135).
109
3.2 Asherah/Athirat and synonymous female deities
3.2.1 Occurrence in Ancient Near Eastern religions
In the pre-Ugaritic era of biblical studies, Robertson Smith's conclusions regarding Asherah65
enjoyed a wide following.66 Although several passages in the Hebrew Bible refer directly to
the goddess Asherah,67 earlier scholars denied that this was the name of a goddess. At present
it is generally accepted that "Asherah" in the Hebrew Bible refers to both an independent
goddess and her wooden cult symbol. 68
It seems that the Ebla texts are the earliest to mention a goddess Asherah, although she ap-
pears to be a 'lesser but well-attested deity'.69 She appears as Ašratum70 – consort of the god
Amurru71 – in cuneiform texts from the First Dynasty of Babylon. 72 Her cult was probably
brought to Mesopotamia by the Amorites. 73 Being denoted as consort of Amurru is evidence
of her West Semitic origin. 74 In a votive inscription dedicated to Ašratum on behalf of Ham-
murapi, 75 Ašratum is described as kallat šar šami, "bride of the king of heaven" and bēlet
kuzbi u ulsi, "mistress of sexual vigour and rejoicing". The personal name Ašratum-ummī,
"Ašratum is my mother", appears only once in the god lists. 76 This name may be compared
with the Old Akkadian name Ummī-dŠamaš,77 meaning Šamaš-is-my-mother. 78 The name
Aširta (Asherah) appears several times in the el-Amarna Letters,79 mentioning the king of
Amurru, named Abdi-Aširta, "servant of Aširta". His name was often written as: abdi-a-ši-ir-
ti(te), abdi-aš-ra-tum, abdi-daš-ra-tum, abdi-aš-ra-ti, abdi-daš-ra-ti and abdi-aš-ra-ta. The
65
'The opinion that there was a Canaanite goddess called Ashera, and that the trees or poles of the same name
were her particular symbols, is not tenable; every altar had its ashera, even such altars as in the popular, pre-
prophetic forms of Hebrew religion were dedicated to Jehovah. This is not consistent with the idea that the sa-
cred pole was the symbol of a distinct divinity' (Robertson Smith 1969:188-189). Robertson Smith delivered
these Lectures on the Religions of the Semites during 1888-1891.
66
Margalit 1990:265.
67
Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 14:15; 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:4.
68
Day 2000:42-43.
69
Day 1986:385. Ebla texts dated ca 2350 BC. See also § 2.3.
70
Also known as Aširatum, consort of the lunar deity Amurru (Lipińsky 1972:103).
71
Amurru was the eponymous god of the Amorites – nomadic peoples of the western desert – who became visi-
ble in Mesopotamia from the late third millennium BC. Amurru is characterised as a storm god, analogous to
Hadad. Amurru carried the epithet "Lord of the Mountain", which is also reflected in the name El Shadday (Van
der Toorn 1999a:32). See also § 3.5 and § 3.7.
72
ca 1850-1831 BC (Day 1986:386).
73
Day 1986:386.
74
Wyatt 1999a:100.
75
Dated 1792-1750 BC. See footnote on Hammurapi in § 2.4.
76
Day 1986:386.
77 d
is an Akkadian determinative (meaning sign; see footnote on "determinative" in § 2.7) that appears before the
name of a god. The sign is for the word "dingir", meaning "god", the equivalent of il or ilu in West Semitic
(Borger 1979:204).
78
Lipińsky 1972:104.
79
Dated fourteenth century BC. See § 2.5.
110
word for "holy place" or "sanctuary" is attested in Akkadian as aširtu, ešertu, iširtu, išertum,
ašru, ašratu.80
The Babylonian Atirat, called bēlet sēri, has chthonic81 features similar to the Underworld
goddess Geštinanna.82 Both are connected to the god Amurru; Geštinanna was regarded as
his consort at times. Atirat, portrayed as West Semitic solar deity, has been identified in Bab-
ylonia with Geštinanna as they both have the same fate, spending half of their lives in the
Underworld.83 The Sumerian myth, Inanna's descent to the Netherworld, recounts Gešti-
nanna's compulsory stay in the Underworld. 84 The solar deities, Šapšu and Atirat, are the on-
ly two deities of the Ugaritic pantheon called rabbatu.85 In Palestine, during that period,86 the
sun was considered to be a female deity. 87 According to Lipińsky, 88 Atirat could have been
venerated as a solar goddess at Taanach. A fifteenth century BC Akkadian letter found at
Taanach mentions prince Abdi-Aširti, or Abdi-Ašrati – servant-of-Atirat – and also refers to
ummān (u-ma-an) dAširat, meaning "wizard of Atirat", an expression designating a diviner. 89
This title can be compared to that of one of the prophets (āpilum) of Šamaš,90 mentioned in a
letter from Mari. 91
Ašratum – probably characterised as goddess of the nomads [Amurru/Amorites] – was often

called Ašratum bēlet sēri, dGú-bar-ra or Gašan-gû-eden-na, "the Lady of the Steppe".92 As
goddess of the Steppe, and identified with the desert god Amurru, Atirat went out to the desert
80
Day 1986:386, 388.
81
Chthonic deity refers to a deity of the Netherworld (Deist 1990:44).
82
Geštinanna was known in Mesopotamia and Sumer. She was goddess of justice, heaven and hell, intelligence,
creativity and water. It is "She who keeps records in the Underworld" and is the "Lady of the Vine" (Ann &
Imel 1993:330).
83
See footnotes on the solar deity Shamash in § 2.4 and § 2.14.6. A fragment of a Ugaritic hymn to the sun
goddess Šapšu reveals aspects that can be compared with Atirat. The sun appears every morning in the east,
disappears at night in the west, travelling through the Netherworld to appear again the next morning in the east.
The belief that the sun was a female deity is attested by a Phoenician ivory relief exhibiting a winged sun-disc
and feminine head with Hathor curls (Lipińsky 1972:106). See footnotes on Hathor in § 2.13 and § 2.14.1. The
name Geštinanna means "Grapes of Heaven"; Šapšu, apparently, was particularly fond of wine (Lipińsky
1972:117-118).
84
Lipińsky 1972:109. See footnotes in § 2.3 and § 2.4 on Inanna.
85
The title rbt (rabbatu) reveals a particular "community of honour" between Šapšu and Atirat (Lipińsky
1972:116-117).
86
ca fifteenth century BC.
87
According to inscribed clay tablets found at Taanach (Lipińsky 1972:105). See § 2.13 and subparagraph on
Taanach.
88
Lipińsky 1972:105. See "Taanach" in § 2.13.
89
Albright 1944:16, 18.
90
Šamaš (Shamash) was an Akkadian solar deity, venerated by the Assyrians and Aramaeans. Šamaš was a son
of the lunar deity Sîn (Van Reeth 1994:227). See also relevant footnotes in § 2.4 and § 2.14.6.
91
Lipińsky 1972:105.
92
Lipińsky 1972:104.
111
to suckle newborn gods.93 From ancient Arabian sources Atirat is attested as a well-known
solar goddess and consort of the moon deities, ‛Amm and Wadd. 94 These sources include sev-
eral South Arabian inscriptions, a North Arabian stela and a few Arabian Thamudic personal
names. The three main deities of the old Arabian pantheon were the star god, moon god and
sun goddess. In the Arabian kingdom of Qatabān the principle god was ‛Amm – meaning
"uncle" – the lunar deity. A territory of this kingdom, called d-’trt, meaning "that of Atirat",
was devoted to her. The lunar deity Wadd – meaning "loving" – of the kingdoms Ma‛in and
Awsan, was worshipped together with Atirat in the temple there. An inscription from Ma‛in
mentions a month called d-’trt, – "the one of Atirat" – the name clearly owing to a feast cele-
brated during that month in honour of her. Three gods of Taymā’ in North Arabia – Salm zī
Mahram, Sîn-gallā and ’Ašīrā’ are mentioned in an Aramaic inscription. Sîn-gallā – meaning
"Sîn the Great" – is normally considered to have been the lunar deity. The affinity to the
Babylonian moon god Sîn probably dates to the period 553-544 BC when the Babylonian king
Nabonidus, a fervent worshipper of Sîn, sojourned in Taymā’. Sîn most likely replaced the
local lunar deity whose consort was ’Ašīrā’.95
A comparison of the Akkadian couple Amurru and Ašratum with the Ugaritic Yrh and ’Atrt
may lead to the inference that Atirat had originally been a solar deity and consort of the moon
god (Yrh).96 An Ugaritic text mentions Atirat and Yarah as parallelisms. 97 According to an
early Ugaritic myth, Atirat was presumed to be a solar deity ’atiratu, "who treads the heavens
from end to end" in her daily travel. In this instance she may be compared with an ancient
South Arabian solar goddess Tānuf (tnp), "the one who moves to and fro".98
Margalit 99 suggests that the Ugaritic word atrt and its Hebrew cognate ’ašērâ were originally
common nouns meaning "wife, consort". Literally, it means "she-who-follows-in-the-
footsteps (of her husband)". From a Sumerian inscription, dedicated to Hammurapi, 100 Ca-
naanite Athirat's Amorite counterpart Ašratu(m) was the wife (aššat) of Amurru, the warrior
and storm god, son of Anu.101 Her role and function as fertility goddess is reflected in an
93
Fulco 1987b:492.
94
Day 1986:397.
95
Lipińsky 1972:101-103.
96
Lipińsky 1972:110.
97
Lipińsky 1972:116.
98
Lipińsky 1972:116.
99
Margalit 1990:269-270, 273.
100
See relevant footnote in § 2.4.
101
The Sumerian cuneiform sign for "heaven" is an, which is also the name of the Sumerian god of the heaven.
His Babylonian counterpart is Anu, considered as the personified heaven (Hutter 1999a:388).
112
epithet. Whenever Amurru and Ašratu are cited together, the rule of "male first" is invariably
followed. This literary convention reflects a practice attested in both Mesopotamia and Ca-
naan regarding divine married couples. 102 In Ugaritic, as in Arabic, the noun ’tr (footstep,
trace) is used as a preposition meaning "following, after". Margalit 103 draws the conclusion
that 'it thus stands to reason that a common-noun atrt, contextually determined as meaning
"wife, consort", should contain the notion of "following-in-the-footsteps of … " '.
The Hittite Elkurnirša myth104 – dated the second half of the second millennium BC – clearly
has a North-West Semitic background. The god Elkurnirša corresponds to the form ’l qn ’rs
– El, creator of the earth. His wife, Ašertu, is evidently synonymous with Athirat
(Asherah).105 This myth suggests a separation between Elkurnirša (El) and Ašertu (Athirat)
which sheds some light on allusions in the Hebrew Bible associating Ba‛al and Asherah
(Athirat). Scholars consider an estrangement between El and Athirat.106
Two identical figurines107 – the one almost complete and the other a large fragment – have
been excavated at the Philistine cities Aphek and Ekron. 108 Two nude babies, with uplifted
arms, are held between the breasts of each figurine. No similar figurine of a mother suckling
two babies has been found. An "ivory" from Ugarit depicting a winged goddess with Hath-
or109 hairstyle, has been identified as the nurse of the twins Shah and Shalem,110
102
According to an Ancient Near Eastern phenomenon, 'Ugaritic male deities tend to represent a reality statically
(for example, warriorhood, and fertility), while their female consorts are thought of as bringing that reality into
action (by actual fighting, the act of physical fecundity)' (Fulco 1987b:492). This led to significant uncertainty
within the various pantheons regarding their roles and sexuality. Although El – at Ugarit – was father to all crea-
tures and creator of heaven and earth, Athirat is called "creatress of the gods" in many Phoenician inscriptions
(Fulco 1987b:492). In the Ugaritic legend of Aqhat, the craftsman god Kothar-wa-Hasis promised the patriarch
Danel a bow which Danel presents to his son Aqhat; see footnote in this paragraph on Keret. The goddess Anat
(see § 3.3) covets the bow and eventually offers Aqhat immortality to obtain the bow. He spurns her indicating
that as female she has no business with a bow. After this humiliation she murders him. In the Ancient Near
Eastern texts the bow is an unequivocal symbol of masculinity. In a number of texts Anat – goddess of love and
war – is explicitly described as taking away men's bows, thereby changing them into women. This mythological
theme arises from men's experience that women are threatening to their sexuality and life. Ancient men were
profoundly concerned about their potency and sexuality (Hillers 1973:71-74, 78).
103
Margalit 1990:274.
104
Elkurnirša was the god in the Hittite mythology who created the earth (Van Reeth 1994:72).
105
Although Athirat seems to be the consort of Il, this is nowhere stated as such (Wyatt 1999a:99).
106
Day 1986:390-391. The thesis is that El lost Asherah to Ba‛al due to El's alleged impotence and Ba‛al's sei-
zure of the kingship of the pantheon (Olyan 1988:40).
107
The figurines – dated the thirteenth century BC – are females with long hair curling outwards – which could
be serpents; with a protruding navel and a deeply cut vagina and pubic hair; three bracelets on each wrist and a
crescent-shaped pendant (Margalith 1994:109). Compare these figurines with descriptions in § 2.13.
108
The two cities are approximately thirty-eight kilometres from each other (Margalith 1994:109).
109
See relevant footnote in § 2.14.1.
110
The names mean "Dawn" and "Dusk", respectively (Margalith 1994:110). After their birth – according to the
Ugaritic text – the twin gods left for the desert to live among the stones and trees. As the desert was not capable
of sustaining life, the gods hunted on the fringe of the desert (Hadley 2000:45-46).
113
progeny of El, born from two wives. This nurse, "The Lady", the "Great Mother goddess", is
none other than Asherah-and-Rahmaya.111 The two figurines, as well as the ivory, all repre-
sent the same mythological theme of a 'divine mother suckling two (semi-)divine twins'.112
Suggestions that Rhmy refers to the two goddesses Athirat and Anat have been disputed. The
name could refer to a completely independent goddess, equivalent to the Akkadian goddess
d
sa-sú-ra-tum – meaning womb.113 This suggestion has, however, been superseded by the
idea that dsa-sú-ra-tum should rather be equated with ktrt, the birth goddess.114 A number of
other cult objects excavated at Ekron include painted animal figurines, as well as a stylised
head with birdlike facial features. This head is characteristic of Ashdoda, a female figurine
found at Ashdod.115 'Ashdoda is a hallmark of the mother goddess in the Aegean cult.'116
Cultic inscriptions excavated at Tel Miqne – ancient Philistine city of Ekron – indicate that
the Canaanite Asherah was worshipped there. The most important inscription reads 'sancti-
fied to Asherat, for the shrine and oil'. 117
Athirat – implied to have once been a solar deity and consort of the moon god – was later
seen as two separate goddesses. Under the name Athirat she lost her solar character to be-
come a maritime goddess "who treads on the sea", 118 and received naval characteristics in the
Ugaritic pantheon.119 She is frequently called rbt.’atrt. ym, "Lady Athirat of the Sea". The
"Lady who traverses the Sea" was probably the original full name of the goddess, later abbre-
viated to the common designation "Athirat".120 Mythological texts confirm her maritime na-
ture in the religious traditions of Ugarit, as well as those in the coastal cities of Tyre and
111
Some scholars indicate that Rahmy, meaning "maiden", refers to the virgin Anat. Therefore, two goddesses
are implied, namely Asherah and Anat. Other scholars conceive a single goddess Athirat, with either a second
name or an epithet Rahmy. The identification of Rahmy with Anat could be on account of raham, translated as
"damsel" (Margalith 1994:111). However, it would be surprising that the virgin Anat (rhm) could be a mother
goddess. Rhmy is probably just another name for Athirat (Day 1986:390). In the Ugaritic mythology Anat was
more a martial than maternal figure (Margalith 1994:112).
112
Margalith 1994:110-111. In the Hebrew Bible the "divine twins" may be reflected in the narratives of Esau
and his twin Jacob, as well as that of Jacob's grandsons Perez [meaning, "bursting forth"] and Zerah [meaning
"sunrise", "dawn"]. See Genesis 25:21-27; 38 (Margalith 1994:113).
113
In the Hebrew Bible rhm means "womb" (Margalith 1994:112).
114
Day 1986:390.
115
The Ashdoda figurine has a body in the shape of a chair and a birdlike head (Dothan 1990:27).
116
Dothan 1990:27. Mother goddesses were often dominant in early pantheons. Inanna developed into the later
Babylonian Ishtar and Syrian Astarte (Jay 1996:14).
117
Gitin 1990:232. The inscriptions may indicate the storage of oil used in a cultic rite for Asherah. The lan-
guage of the inscriptions cannot be clearly identified and may be ancient Hebrew, Phoenician or Philistine. Ae-
gean influence is noticeable in the city – confirming the connection between the Sea Peoples (such as the Philis-
tines) and the Aegean region. Ekron was an important city-state throughout most of the Iron Age and one of the
largest cities in the biblical period (Gitin 1990:232).
118
Lipińsky 1972:117.
119
Fulco 1987b:492.
120
Day 1986:387-388.
114
Sidon, mentioning three times the "fisherman of Athirat".121 The gods of Tyre were known at
Ugarit by the thirteenth century BC. According to a mythological text [from Ras Shamra], 122
'the hero Keret123 made a pilgrimage and offered a vow to Asherah of Tyre'.124
Punic125 inscriptions refer to a supreme goddess, Tnt or Tinnit, whose cult was known in
Phoenicia during the seventh century BC. Her identity has been disputed, while the Canaanite
goddesses Asherah, Anat and Astarte have been suggested as possibilities. As the cult of Tin-
nit was known in Phoenicia, she could have been a native Phoenician goddess and not neces-
sarily originated in North Africa. Scholars argue that the name tnt is related to tnn, "the drag-
on", meaning that she could have been "The Dragon Lady" or "the one of the dragon". 126
Binger 127 disputes the argument that Asherah either was a lady of the sea, or was treading on a
sea-dragon. In her Akkadian title, bēlit sēri, she is connected with mountains and steppes,
and definitely not with the sea or rivers. Furthermore, interpreting rbt atrt ym as "Lady
Asherah of the day", and not "Lady Asherah of the sea", is syntactically and orthographically
just as possible as the traditional interpretations. However, the problem with the interpreta-
tion of "day" is that špš, and not Asherah, was the Ugaritic solar deity.
On a number of occasions, the goddess Athirat is called Qudšu.128 Apart from being attested
in Ugaritic texts, the name Qudšu is also known in Egypt as the name of a goddess, 129 where
she was depicted naked with a Hathor wig and standing on a lion holding serpents in one
121
Lipińsky 1972:110.
122
Text on a clay tablet, inscribed with the alphabetic cuneiform script (Guirand 1996:74). See also § 2.8.
123
Texts concerning Phoenician mythology, found at Ras Shamra, do not relate only about deities, but also con-
tain legends about god-like heroes. Keret, king of Sidon, was the son of El and a soldier of the goddess Šapas.
He had a beautiful son, Danel, who was another mythological hero (Guirand 1996:79).
124
Peckham 2001:31.
125
Punic was the language of the Carthaginians. The Punic character – treacherous and perfidious – was at-
tributed to the Carthaginians by the Romans (Oxford University Press 1964b:716). Carthage was an ancient city
near Tunis on the North African coast, founded by the Phoenicians and destroyed during the Punic wars [third
century BC] (Oxford University Press 1987:247). In an excavation project, three inscriptions from a temple wall
at the Tuscan port Pyrgi – two in the Etruscan language and one in Punic – were found, dedicated to the Phoeni-
cian deity Astarte. This find proves that there was an important Punic colony in this Etruscan port during the
early fifth century BC (Charles-Picard 1983:297-298, 308).
126
Day 1986:396.
127
Binger 1997:43-45.
128
Qudšu is a name meaning "holiness" or "sanctuary". 'The personification of sanctuaries in divine names is
well-attested among the Semites' (Day 1986:388).
129
From the Nineteenth Dynasty [1293-1185 BC] the Egyptian mythology knew a goddess Qudšu. Her roots
were apparently in the Semitic world. She was usually depicted between the gods Min and Resheph, the latter
being a Semitic god. In the Egyptian documents Qudšu – whose attribute was the lion – was only an epithet of
the goddess Anat. As Qudšu (Anat), she was the consort of Amurru, the god of the West. In the Egyptian texts
Amurru had the name Resheph. They appeared together at harvest time in the sacrifice of the ass. The god Min
was identified with the god Pan of the Greeks. Min was the protector of travellers in the desert (Guirand
1996:38, 76).
115
hand and flowers in the other; in some instances she has serpents in both hands, her erotic
character being distinctively emphasised. On a relief discovered at Thebes, she is called qdš-
‛strt-‛nt indicating a fusion with the Canaanite goddesses Astarte and Anat.130 Wyatt131 men-
tions that the name on this relief reads qdšt [and not qdš], and argues that there is 'no justifica-
tion for identifying the goddess of the stelae with Athirat'. According to Cornelius,132
"Qudšu" is identified on stelae by hieroglyphs as qdš/qdšt, and he proposes that the name be
read as "Qedeshet", without suggesting any pronunciation.
The early attestations of Asherah – originally a West Semitic goddess – do not afford much
information on her character. Clay tablets discovered at the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit
provide important finds from a religious point of view. All the major deities that appear in the
Ugaritic myths and rituals are found in other Canaanite sources, such as Aramaic, Moabite
and Phoenician texts. The Canaanite Asherah was known by the name Athiratu or Athirtu
(’atrt). 'It is indisputable that the Ugaritic and other North-West Semitic texts have revolu-
tionized our understanding of the Bible' and the Ugaritic texts 'are our most important North-
west Semitic source about the goddess Asherah'.133 Before the discovery of these texts,
scholars erroneously equated Asherah with Astarte. According to the Ugaritic myths,
134
Asherah was the wife of the aged supreme deity El, and was also known as ’Elat, "god-
dess". Depictions of Asherah are that of a typical mother – seen as a kind of matriarch.135
Besides striving to please El, she apparently had a decisive influence on major rulings made
by him. Asherah was, furthermore, referred to as El's consort – ’ilt, or ’Elat – the "mother of
the gods". These gods are termed the "seventy sons of Athirat".136 However, it was not at-
tested throughout ancient times that she was the mother of El's children or that she had un-
named children of her own.137 By the end of the second millennium BC Asherah's popularity
130
Day 1986:388-389.
131
Wyatt 1999a:100.
132
Cornelius 2004:45. Qedeshet is indicated by various titles on iconographic material, such as "Ke(d)eshet,
lady of heaven", "Qedesh, lady of heaven, mistress of all the gods, eye of Ra, without her equal", "Qedeshet,
lady of heaven, great of magic, mistress of the stars" and "Qedeshet, beloved of Ptah". The titles of Qedeshet,
Anat and Astarte are very stereotyped – especially referring to "lady of heaven", "mistress of the gods" – but as
Cornelius (2004:80-84) points out, only Qedeshet is called the "beloved of Ptah".
133
Day 1986:385, 387.
134
Supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon. See § 3.7.
135
The Ba‛al myth explains that Asherah kept herself busy with maternal and domestic affairs: she worked with
a spindle, washed her clothes and cooked food in a cauldron – all to charm the good-natured El (Korpel
2001:131).
136
Day (1986:387) indicates that 'there is a direct line of connection' between the view of Athirat's seventy sons
and the later Jewish concept of the 'seventy guardian angels of the nations' (Dt 32:8; 1 Enoch 89:59; 90:22-25).
The "sons of God" (Dt 32:8) reflect the Canaanite idea of the "sons of El" – bn ’il. Albright (1968:121) adds that
Asherah also had the designation Qâniyatu ’elîma, "she who gives birth" to the gods. In an earlier Ugaritic myth
she presumably destroyed the Sea Dragon, thereby enabling El to create the earth.
137
Fulco 1987b:492.
116
began to decline as she systematically merged with Anat. She finally lost her position as in-
dependent goddess in all Canaanite religions outside Israel, only materialising at times as a
member of the triad of goddesses, together with Anat and Astarte.138
It is problematic to establish the "real" or "original" meaning of the name "Asherah", and ac-
tually quite irrelevant. The relevance of a word, name or title is to verify the way it has been
employed in a given context and to discover the hidden codes. Asherah is regarded as both a
divine name and a noun, and more likely as a word "functioning" as a divine name. 139
Binger 140 proposes that "Asherah" is the official name-title of the primary goddess of the Uga-
ritic pantheon and that this name-title denotes her as female counterpart of the male supreme
god – be it El, Ba‛al or Yahweh. Hadley141 indicates that the origin of the cult of Asherah
(Athirat) is probably in Mesopotamia where she was introduced as Ašratu or Ašratum by the
Amorites. 142 Many proposals have been advanced regarding the etymology of Ugaritic
Athirat and Hebrew Asherah, yet, the meaning and derivation of the terms remain uncertain.
According to the Priestly tradition in Exodus 6:3, ydX la143 is the deity who was worshipped
by the pre-Mosaic patriarchal people who did not yet know Yahweh, or his name. The word
ydX occurs forty-eight times in the Masoretic Text, mainly in early poetic and late archaic
texts. To determine the identity of the deity, evidence from extra-biblical texts should be uti-
lised.ydX is generally derived from a Proto-Semitic word "tad", meaning "mountain". 'A
metaphysical144 extension of the primitive meaning',145 from the Hebrew dX, is obviously
"breast".146 If, in contrast to the customary interpretation identifying Semitic deities – such as
Yahweh and El – with a mountain, the etymology for "breast" is favoured, Lutzky147 theorises
that ydX was originally the name or epithet of a goddess before becoming a biblical epithet of
Yahweh/El. Lutzky148 examines the possibility that ydX, as a goddess epithet, is more specifi-
cally that of Asherah. The feminine morphene -(a)y149 existed in early West Semitic texts,
138
Korpel 2001:127, 129-131, 136, 138, 141.
139
Binger 1997:142, 146.
140
Binger 1997:146.
141
Hadley 2000:44, 49.
142
See earlier discussion in this paragraph.
143
El Shadday, translated as "God Almighty".
144
Metaphysics: 'the branch of philosophy that seeks to investigate the first principles of reality through logical
argument; the scholarly study of the essence of being' (Deist 1990:156).
145
Lutzky 1998:16.
146
Genesis 49:25; Isaiah 28:9; Lamentations 4:3.
147
Lutzky 1998:15-16.
148
Lutzky 1998:16-23, 32, 34.
149
The feminine suffix -ay appears only in the name of Sarai. The later shift to Sarah suggests that -ay – at some
stage – was no longer understood as feminine (Lutzky 1998:17).
117
particularly poetic texts, in the names of deities and mythical beings. A goddess nursing was
a divine act. Many decades ago scholars suggested that ydX was the name of a fertility deity,
linked to dX, "breast". ydX expressed the nurturant aspect of the
In this instance the name
"great mother" visually represented with large multiple breasts. ydX la could thus be 'an
androgynous fertility deity incorporating the image of Asherah (who is associated with nurs-
ing), consistent with the androgynous monotheism of Gen. 1.' 150
As major West Semitic deity, Asherah's name – or cognate names – is found from the second
millennium BC among the Amorites, in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, Phoenicia, Arabia and Egypt,
as well as in Hittite and Canaanite mythology. Her image is reflected in a number of promi-
nent Ancient Near Eastern goddesses. Evidence indicates the presence of Asherah in early
Israelite religion, with specific reference to inscriptions found at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet
’el-Qom. Asherah also carries the epithet Rahmay – as discussed earlier in this paragraph –
referring to "the one of the womb". Imagery representing breasts and a womb is a form of
divine epiphany associated with mother goddesses. The cult of the "goddess of the breast"
has been tolerated in the Israelite Monarchy from the eighth to sixth centuries BC and is likely
to have been the cult of Asherah. ydX as El-epithet is virtually limited to the Priestly Source,
which singled ydX la out as the pre-Mosaic God, rather than another deity. 151 'The paradox-
ical elevation of El Shadday – as the god of the past – may have been a factor in the disap-
pearance of goddess worship from the official religion of Israel as depicted in the biblical
texts.'152
150
Lutzky 1998:18. Fishbane (1987a:27) refers to the first creation narrative in Genesis 1:27: 'So God created
man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them'. A trace of the
creation of a primordial androgynous being (hermaphrodite) could be implied here. Later rabbinic traditions
considered Adam hermaphroditic. The Legend of the Jews (Ginzberg 1909:66) mentions that 'the creation of
woman from man was possible because Adam originally had two faces, which were separated at the birth of
Eve'. Cassuto (1961:57-58) confirms that according to the rabbinic interpretation in the Talmud – B. Berakhoth
61a, B.‛Erubin 18a, Bereshith Rabba viii 1 and other parallel passages – 'man was created with two faces, that is,
hermaphrodite'. Skinner (1930:68) disagrees that the first human being was androgynous, being later separated
into man and woman, as it has no substantiation in the text. Fishbane (1987b:199) notes that the creation version
in Genesis 1:27 stands in sharp contrast to the tradition in Genesis 2:22-24. The Babylonian Talmud is classified
under six orders or sedarim, which are divided into tractates, such as Berakoth, ‛Erubin and Bereshith Rabba
(Rappoport & Patai 1966:360-362). See also footnote on the Mishnah and the Talmud in § 3.2.2. An androgy-
nous being (or hermaphrodite) means bisexuality, and relates to the simultaneous possession of male and female
physical features (Deist 1990:12). Hermaphroditus is a mythological being with male and female sexual charac-
teristics. According to ancient traditions he was the child of the Greek gods Hermes and Aphrodite. On request
of the nymph Salamacis – when Hermaphroditus attempted to reject her advances – their two bodies were united
as one, being neither man nor woman, yet to be of both sexes (Van Reeth 1994:106).
151
For a detailed discussion of the arguments in favour of the epithet ydX being linked to Asherah, see Lutzky
(1998:16-36).
152
Lutzky 1998:35.
118
Athirat/Asherah, Anat and Astarte, as well as the Mesopotamian goddess Inanna-Ishtar, seem
to have fused. Egyptian Athirat – called Qudshu – was probably an assimilation of the attrib-
utes of other north-eastern goddesses. Likewise, Athirat's consort Ba‛al was most likely not
merely Ba‛al-Hadad, but a combination of several gods.153
3.2.2 Occurrence in the Masoretic Text and Israelite religion

The goddess hrXa (Asherah) – masculine plural ~yrXa – was worshipped in Palestine at the
time when the Israelites established themselves there. Through the centuries she was popular
among the Northern Israelites and Judeans alike, even being venerated by kings and
queens.154 Dependent on different perceptions of the biblical Asherah, she could be explained
as 'a phenomenon of official religion, a forbidden non-conformist cult, a house-cult or part of
popular religion'. 155 Various suggestions have been made by scholars over a period of time
and conclusions drawn regarding the meaning of Asherah in the Hebrew Bible. Some schol-
ars equate Asherah with the goddess Astarte or her symbol, while others maintain that
Asherah was not the name of a deity but a cult object. As early as 1889, Robertson Smith156
claimed that Asherah always denoted a wooden pole. Other scholars had an image, a tree or a
phallic symbol in mind. The Dutch scholar, Kuenen 157 argued that Asherah signified both a
goddess and a cult object symbolising her. 158 She was not to be equated with Astarte. The
view of Kuenen is still widely accepted today and consistent with interpretation of biblical
data and Ancient Near Eastern archaeological evidence. Since the discovery of the inscrip-
tions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom159 the possibility of a female consort for Yah-
weh has been extensively debated. In both instances reference is made to "Yahweh and his
Asherah".
The Hebrew word ’ašērâ – as also its Amorite-Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates – represents a
North-West Semitic noun ’tr, meaning, "to follow behind" ("in someone's footsteps"); denot-
ing a "wife", "consort".160 Although the Semitic root ’tr can have different explanations, the
153
Fulco 1987b:492.
154
Lipińsky 1972:112.
155
Kletter 2001:199.
156
Robertson Smith 1969:188. He specifically refers to Deuteronomy 16:21, 'You shall not plant any tree as an
Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God that you shall make', and draws the conclusion that Deuteronomy
referred to 'either a living tree or a tree-like post' and argues that either form was probably originally admissible
(Robertson Smith 1969:188).
157
Kuenen 1882a:88-93.
158
The people of the Ancient Near East – and particularly the Israelites – hardly made any distinction between a
deity and its image or symbol (Kuenen 1882a:89).
159
See § 4.3.9 and § 4.3.10 for a discussion on these contentious inscriptions and the implication of the phrase
"Yahweh … and his Asherah" – possibly referring to Asherah being his consort.
160
Margalit 1990:284. See also discussion in § 3.2.1.
119
Ugaritic interpretation does not include "walk" or "stride", but only "follow". The Hebrew ’šr
is a common noun – "footstep", as well as a denominative verb ’šr – "to follow" (behind), par-
ticularly in the case of the Pi’el161 form of the verb.162 Apart from the morphology of the
word ’šrh pointing to a common noun, the literary-idiomatic context indicates a divine person
with the proper name Asherah. 163 Akkadian, Phoenician and Aramaic terms corresponding to
the Hebrew ’ašērâ, ’ašērīm and ’ašērōt, designate a shrine, chapel or sanctuary. 164 Day,165
however, indicates that although the meaning of "chapel" or "cella" is attested in other Semit-
ic languages it does not appear elsewhere in Hebrew and should therefore be rejected.
Kletter166 states that Asherah was an undeniable component of the official cult of Judah, in-
troduced into the Jerusalem temple by the Judean kings as a foreign, but not forbidden cult. 167
Regarding Josiah's168 reform, the Hebrew Bible states, 'and he brought out the Asherah from
the house of the LORD'. 169 Many debates evolve around the problematic word ’ašērâ in the
Masoretic Text. It seems to indicate a wooden cult object, a pole, a tree or a stone that can
"stand", 170 be "made", 171 be "set up",172 be "planted",173 "cut down",174 "uprooted",175
"burned",176 "brought out",177 "destroyed", 178 "made into dust",179 "taken away"180 and "bro-
ken into pieces". 181 The word ’ašērâ occasionally indicates the name of a goddess. 182
Vriezen183 is of the opinion that, on the basis of all the aforementioned texts, it could be
161
Pi’el is often the causative form of the verb.
162
Vermaak 2001:58.
163
Margalit 1990:266.
164
Lipińsky 1972:116.
165
Day 1986:392.
166
Kletter 2001:200.
167
Deuteronomy 16:21; 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:4, 7; 2 Chronicles 33:3-5, 19. Asherah was also closely
associated with the "host of heaven"(2 Ki 17:16; 21:3; 23:4).
168
Josiah reigned in Judah ca 640/39-609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
169
2 Kings 23:6. Verse 7 reads: 'And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the
house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah'. The Hebrew word ~ytb is translated in
the ESV by "hangings"; Holladay (1971:51) interprets it as "woven garment". Day (1986:407) mentions that
~ytb is probably cognate with the Arabic batt, "woven garment".
170
Isaiah 27:9.
171
1 Kings 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3; 2 Chronicles 33:3; Isaiah 17:8.
172
173
Deuteronomy 16:21.
174
Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; Judges 6:25-26, 28, 30; 2 Kings 23:14; 2 Chronicles 14:2; 31:1.
175
Micah 5:13.
176
Deuteronomy 12:3; 2 Kings 23:6, 15.
177
2 Kings 23:6.
178
2 Chronicles 19:3.
179
2 Kings 23:6; 2 Chronicles 34:4, 7.
180
2 Chronicles 17:6.
181
2 Chronicles 34:4.
182
An "image" of Asherah (1 Ki 15:13; 2 Ki 21:7), "prophets" of Asherah (1 Ki 18:19), "vessels" for Asherah
(2 Ki 23:4) and "hangings" [woven garments] for Asherah (2 Ki 23:7) (Vriezen 2001:73).
183
Vriezen 2001:73.
120
deduced that the ’ašērâ was an object used in the cult, placed next to the altars and next to the
pillars dedicated to Ba‛al.
A sacred tree or pole was presumably treated as a symbol of the goddess Asherah. 'The ex-
plicit prohibition against planting a sacred pole or tree beside an altar of YHWH in Deut
16:21 shows that this actually did happen.'184 North185 points out that the hbcm-type sacred
pole or tree-trunk had in some cases a masculine phallic character. The stylised wooden poles
– representing an image of Asherah – were rejected by strict Yahwism. 186 Smith187 argues
that the Israelite religion demonstrated variegated roles of popular and state-religion, wherein
the 'mixture of indigenous and imported religious features, and the complex features of con-
vergence and differentiation undermines some of the main scholarly views about Israelite re-
ligion in general and Israelite monotheism in particular'. 188 Evans189 proffers that this differ-
entiation process endeavoured to define Yahwism in more exclusive terms, rejecting non-
Yahwistic twbcm and ~yrXa, even though these features were included in some Yahweh wor-
shippers' application of Yahwism.
The Hebrew Bible, at times, equates Asherah with a sacred tree or pole. 190 This tradition has
not been enlightened by the, otherwise informative, Ugaritic texts. Korpel191 indicates that it
is reasonably conclusive that trees and stones were regarded as animated beings whispering
messages, however, according to available texts, they never related to the goddess Asherah.
She explains that the relation to the "asherah-tree" was a symbol of fertility probably as a re-
sult of Asherah's merging with her daughter Anat.192 Cult statues made of wood were
184
Vriezen 2001:73. For a discussion of the sacred tree symbol and stylised tree, see Hestrin (1991:50-59) and
Dever (2005:226-229). Olyan (1988:4) mentions that the deuteronomistic polemic against the "asherah" is
found mainly in 'rhetorical speeches concerning the sins of Israel and/or Judah against Yahweh' (for example 2
Ki 17:16-17).
185
North 1989:131.
186
Jeroboam's golden calves are a prime example of an inherent Israelite cultic feature which was later rejected
as Canaanite (Evans 1995:201). See § 2.14.4.
187
Smith 1990:154.
188
Smith 1990:154.
189
Evans 1995:201.
190
1 Kings 14:23; 16:33; 2 Kings 17:16.
191
Korpel 2001:141.
192
Korpel 2001:141. During the first millennium BC twbcm and twmb were regarded symbols of Ba‛al. The
trees associated with these twbcm should, therefore, represent Ba‛al's wife Anat (see § 3.3). In Israel, however,
fertility resided in Asherah as El, and not Ba‛al, was held to be the supreme God. The Ugaritic myths denote
Asherah as wife of El, the elderly chief god of the Canaanite pantheon (Korpel 2001:130, 141). As El was asso-
ciated with wisdom, the "Tree of Knowledge" may be linked to him, as the "Tree of Life" to Asherah. The
asherah-pole of the goddess was a surrogate tree of life (Kruger 2001a:65). Korpel (2001:141-142) furthermore
indicates that the original reading of Hosea 14:9 (not the translation in verse 8) is of some importance:
'Ephraim, what have I to do with your idols?
It is I who is his Anat and his Asherah!
121
common in the Ancient Near East. Popular Judean pillar figurines 193 do not seem to represent
a tree and there is also no definite proof that Asherah had a pillar-shaped body.194 Olyan195 is
of the opinion that biblical and extra-biblical evidence indicates that the asherah was not a
living tree, but maybe a pole in some cases and otherwise a stylised tree, such as a date palm.
According to Day, 196 there is strong evidence suggesting that ’ašērâ in the Hebrew Bible was
a 'wooden pole symbolizing the goddess Asherah', 197 yet, he acknowledges that several refer-
ences in the Masoretic Text denote the goddess herself. 198 Concerning the epigraphic finds at
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom, he favours the view that the phrase "Yahweh and his
Asherah" implies that a 'cult symbol rather than the goddess Asherah (is) directly the source
of blessing alongside Yahweh'. 199
In a pattern discernible in North-West Semitic religions, an abstract aspect of a male deity 'is
hypostatized,200 personified, and worshiped as a goddess, who may then be thought of as the
consort of the god'. 201 This aspect that has been hypostatised is the cultically available pres-
ence of the god. Therefore, not the cult object itself, the asherah, but a token of Yahweh's "ef-
fective presence" is hypostatised. 202 Miller203 is of the opinion that the controversial inscrip-
tion at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud should be recognised as a hypostatisation of Yahweh, thus reference to
a cult object marking his presence. He mentions, however, that 'how far that hypostatization
has taken place in these inscriptions (a feminine deity, the consort of Yahweh?) is not alto-
gether clear'.204
Vermaak205 points out that scholarly discussions on Asherah in the Hebrew Bible can be di-
vided into pre-Ugaritic and post-Ugaritic periods, and that 'despite divergent interpretations it
It is I who is like an always green cyprus,

from me comes your fruit!'
– in this text Anat and Asherah seem to be identified with each other, both compared with a luxuriant fruit-
bearing tree. This idea stems from Wellhausen (Wellhausen, J 1963. Die kleinen Propheten: übersetzt und er-
klärt. 4. Unveränderte Aufl. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
193
See § 2.13 under the subtitle "Female figurines".
194
Kletter 2001:200.
195
Olyan 1988:1.
196
Day 1986:392.
197
Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; 16:21; Judges 6:25-26, 28, 30.
198
Day 2000:46. Examples are: 2 Chronicles 14:3; 17:6; 19:3; 24:18; 34:4.
199
Day 2000:52.
200
Hypostasis: the real representation of God/a god, for example, the 'idea that the holiness or glory of God rep-
resented God in the Israelite temple' (Deist 1990:119). 'Thus it is the "trace" or "effective presence" – not the
cult object – that is hypostatized' (McCarter 1987:155).
201
McCarter 1987:148.
202
McCarter 1987:148, 155.
203
Miller 2000a:204.
204
Miller 2000a:204.
205
Vermaak 2001:43-44, 47.
122
is generally accepted that the asherahs were cult objects symbolizing or representing the god-
dess Asherah'. On the basis of the verbs in the Hebrew Bible connected to the word
"asherah" he is of the opinion that it was a manmade object and not a living tree. Nouns used
in conjunction with "asherah" are "high place",206 "graven/carved image", 207 "pillar", 208 "al-
tar"209 and "incense altar".210 Certain English translations for "asherim" are "groves" or "liv-
ing trees". This interpretation probably followed the Septuagint 211 which has a term "althos"
which was translated as "groves", and in some of the Mishnah 212 texts associated with living
trees. Proposals of sacred asherah-poles in the form of stylised trees have no supportive ar-
chaeological material. 213 Vermaak214 has, however, another proposal, suggesting that
'asherah in the Hebrew Bible as a cult object refers to a certain type of ancient game board.'
The "shield board game"215 or the "game of fifty-eight holes" was played throughout the An-
cient Near East. These boards, the asherahs, were made of ivory or baked clay and several
have been excavated at numerous places. The games were probably played by the Israelites
not fully understanding the impact these games might have on their religious lives. These
boards were possibly regarded as cult objects of the mother goddess. 216 The majority of the
people probably did not comprehend the metaphysical 217 significance of these games and as
the magic took control of them only a few realised the implication thereof. 218
206
1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 7:10; 18:4; 21:3; 23:15; 2 Chronicles 14:3; 17:6; 31:1; 33:3, 19; 34:3.
207
Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; 2 Chronicles 33:19; 34:3, 4, 7; Micah 5:12.
208
For example: Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; 16:21-22; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; 18:4; 23:14.
209
Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5.
210
2 Chronicles 14:4-5; Isaiah 17:8.
211
Also known as the LXX (Seventy); best-known Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It originated some-
time during the late Intertestamental Period and the second century AD. It was widely used by the Early Church
(Deist 1990:234).
212
The Mishnah is the Jewish oral law, contained in the first part of the Talmud, and consists of a summary of all
the major rabbinical pronouncements on the Law. The Talmud – or "Instruction" – is the written version of dis-
cussions by Jewish scholars on the Law and other passages from the Hebrew Bible (Deist 1990:159, 253).
213
Vermaak 2001:49-50.
214
Vermaak 2001:50-61.
215
Referred to as the "shield board game" due to its obvious geometrical shape (Vermaak 2001:51).
216
The mother goddess – also known as a fertility goddess – had many manifestations in the Ancient Near East.
Deities were regularly symbolised by living creatures. The mother goddess was often portrayed by the symbol
of a lion, throne or tree, alluding to strength, dignity and fertility. 'These symbols possibly provide the context or
the Sitz im Leben in which these board games were actually played' and can all be indirectly connected to the
mother goddess, therefore the board games can be regarded as possible cult objects of the mother goddess (Ver-
maak 2001:51-52). The implication would be that these games were played as fertility games, in order that the
mother goddess – passing through the Netherworld – could bring back the fertility god. This would thus be a
favourable game to play for people dependent on agriculture. The excavated game boards have all been dated as
from the end of the Late Bronze Age. Most were found in burial contexts (Vermaak 2001:53-54).
217
See footnote on "metaphysics" in § 3.2.1.
218
Vermaak 2001:62. If these game boards were cult objects of Asherah, as suggested by Vermaak (2001:43-
62), the religious implication would be that Asherah controlled fertility, and that the lives and livelihood of the
ancient people were dependent on the outcome of this game, therefore relinquishing – in the case of the Israelites
– dependence on Yahweh.
123
From a very early period the tradition of a sacred tree symbol formed part of most Ancient
Near Eastern cultures. Depictions of this tree are found in Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, Pales-
tine, Egypt and some Mediterranean countries. In Palestine it appears on a variety of pottery
vessels. 219 The sacred tree, as a source of life, symbolises growth and revival. 220 The ever-
green oak and the terebinth seem to have been the principal sacred trees for the ancient Israel-
ites. Both these trees are still common in the region that was known as Palestine. 221 Epipha-
nies of Yahweh – or his messengers – repeatedly took place under trees;222 Yahweh appeared
to Moses in a bush. 223 The tactic of reducing oracle-giving trees224 – which was a place of
manifestation of the divine – to just wood, was repeated time and again. 225 From the eighth
century BC trees were considered to be a danger to monotheism in general and particularly to
Yahwism. 226 According to Lipińsky, 227 the earliest biblical texts228 imply that asherah was a
"woody spot" or a "Canaanite sacred grove" of considerable size. 229 Exodus 34:13 commands
that the "asherim" (plural) be cut down, thus designating the sacred groves of the Canaanites.
In her discussion of Isaiah 57:3-13 Susan Ackerman230 indicates that the predominant image
in these verses is sexual. The citizens of Jerusalem as well as the city are pictured as a harlot.
The people are involved in sexual intercourse under the trees. They are accused of lusting
among the terebinths and 'under every green tree'. 231 Many motifs used for the two themes –
creation and garden of God – in the composition of Genesis 2-3, are common with examples
219
See § 2.13 regarding the stylised tree as depicted on the Taanach cult stand and the Lachish ewer. Egyptian
tree-representations depict nursing and food-providing aspects. Taking the interchange of deities among neigh-
bouring Ancient Near Eastern cultures into consideration, as well as references in the Hebrew Bible to Asherah
as a tree, clearly indicates that the tree on the Lachish ewer symbolises this goddess (Hestrin 1991:56).
220
Hestrin 1991:54.
221
Although being two different trees the general appearance of the oak and terebinth is similar and they have
therefore been confused by the ancient Israelites. It is not always possible to determine which tree is referred to
in the Hebrew Bible. In certain parts of the Near East the oaks are still today regarded with superstitious rever-
ence by some peasantry (Frazer 1923:322-325). In Egypt the tamarisk tree was sacred to worshippers of Osiris.
According to the myth, Osiris' body – in its sarcophagus – washed ashore at Byblos and lodged in a tamarisk tree
(Walker 1988:471). Osiris was king of the Underworld, according to Egyptian mythology. The belief was that
the pharaohs became Osiris when they died and that immortality could be attained by following Osiris (Willis
1993:33).
222
Genesis 18:1, 4, 8; Judges 6:11; 1 Kings 19:5.
223
Exodus 3:1-5.
224
Genesis 12:6; 2 Samuel 5:24.
225
Keel 1998:54. For example Jeremiah 2:27; 3:9.
226
Keel 1998:54-56.
227
Lipińsky 1972:112.
228
Deuteronomy 16:21; Judges 6:25-30.
229
Despite Lipińsky's (1972:112) suggestion, there is no clear indication in the aforementioned texts that a clus-
ter or number of trees is referred to; both citations mention the asherah next to an altar.
230
Ackerman 1992:152-154.
231
Isaiah 57:5 in the ESV reads: 'you who burn with lust among the oaks, under every green tree'. See a previ-
ous footnote in this paragraph referring to confusion between the oak and terebinth. Ackerman (1992:152) men-
tions that 'the sacred nature of intercourse in Isaiah 57:5 is indeed indicated by a pun in the Hebrew, the word for
"terebinths" – among which the Israelites are accused of lusting – ’ēlîm, is the same as the word for "gods". That
is, one can simultaneously read in v 5a, "you who burn with lust among the terebinths" and "you who burn with
lust among the gods" '.
124
in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Certain elements in the Genesis narrative are related to
sexual and fertility concepts. These include the phrase "mother of all living". 232 Some of the
features in the narrative233 appear in other traditions, suggesting the possibility that it had
been told in earlier forms. In the Genesis narrative it thus became a polemic against Canaan-
ite fertility cults, indicating a link between Eve and Asherah in the presence of the serpent
with its fertility connotations. 234
Vriezen235 mentions that archaeological finds interpreted as remains of a hbcm236 or asherah

and an altar could be an indication that both Yahweh and "his Asherah" were worshipped
alongside each other in that particular sanctuary, each with its own cult object. Regarding the
question of a goddess in the Israelite religion, Miller237 indicates that one cannot declare unre-
servedly 'that one of the distinctive features of the worship of Yahweh was the absence of any
consort in the cult or theology associated with Yahweh'. Although the Hebrew Bible con-
demns the veneration of any other deity alongside Yahweh, the extent of the reaction from the
prophets and deuteronomists on this aspect suggests the existence of syncretism among the
Israelites. The presence or absence of "goddess worship" in Yahwism should be observed in
the total analysis of male-female relations in a social, economic and religious framework.
The radical centralisation of Yahwism included an impression of a feminine dimension of
Yahweh. The obliteration of a feminine dispensation in Yahwism is probably partly due to a
resistance to syncretism and the major role played by goddesses in the mythology and religion
of Syria-Palestine. A distinct characteristic of Yahwism is 'the absorption of divine roles and
powers into the one deity, Yahweh,'238 which incorporates the feminine. However, several
aspects of the Israelite religion embody feminine facets, as seen in the numerous excavated
female figurines and the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom. Therefore, the
possibility should be acknowledged that Israelite worshippers identified the "asherah" of the
epigraphic finds with the great goddess Asherah.239
232
hwx( ) or hyx ( ); see § 3.3.
233
Such as aspects of the serpent, the nakedness of the couple and the punishments of the man and woman (Wal-
lace 1985:184).
234
Wallace 1985:183-184.
235
Vriezen 2001:74-75.
236
twbcm (standing stones) were also used for non-cultic purposes, for example as a treaty-stone (Gn 31:44-45),
a tombstone (Gn 35:20) or a boundary-stone (Is 19:19) (Vriezen 2001:74).
237
Miller 1986:239.
238
Miller 1986:244.
239
Miller 1986:239-241, 244-246.
125
By the presentation of a court case, Edelman240 poses the question of 'proving Yahweh killed
his wife'. She sketches the scenario of a suit filed in the heavenly court on behalf of Asherah's
former earthly worshippers against Yahweh, the prime suspect in the murder of his wife
Asherah. This exposition by Edelman is based on Zechariah 5:5-11. In a vision disclosed to
Zechariah ben Iddo,241 Yahweh revealed his intention to kill Asherah – according to Edelman.
The contents of a sealed hpa242 show a woman, identified as h[Xrh, "Wickedness", simulta-
neously representing Yahweh's "wife" in "human form", as well as her cult statue. The lead
cover of the metallic ephah confined this "divine being" indefinitely. 'The land of Shinar', in
verse 11, could literally mean Babylonia or be a metaphor for the "exile". The vision could
indicate that Asherah was "murdered" or permanently "confined to a coffin". It is on record –
in commensuration with Edelman's interpretation – that Asherah used to be beside Yahweh in
the Jerusalem Temple, 243 and from graffiti and figurines it is known that the Judean people
were quite attached to her prior to the Exile. There is, however, no attestation of her presence
in the Persian-era Jerusalem Temple. Production of popular Judean pillar figurines terminat-
ed at the same time. Approximately five hundred years later Asherah is replaced by a human
mother who gave birth to Yahweh's divine Son. This mother is virtually elevated to the posi-
tion of Asherah, even reintroducing the practice of figurines in her worship. 244 Edelman245
concludes that by 'using an alternative form of scholarship, issues concerning how meaning is
determined when reading an ancient text, the development of monotheism with the resulting
need to reinterpret older Yahwistic texts, and how to understand divine motivations are ex-
plored. … . The case remains unresolved, as do answers to the issues'.
3.2.3 Queen mother and the cult of Asherah

The queen mother – hrybg – held no official office within the Judean and Israelite monarchies
and could not lay claim on any privileges by virtue of her conventional position, although she
240
Edelman 2003:335, 338, 340-343.
241
The prophet Zechariah – one of the twelve minor prophets – was either the son or a descendant of Iddo. In
Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 he is called the son of Iddo, however, he appears as a descendant of Iddo in Nehemiah 12:16.
"Son" may also mean "descendant". Iddo was named as head of a family of priests who returned after the Exile.
Zechariah – a priest, as well as a prophet – was a contemporary of the prophet Haggai. His recorded prophetic
activity was during the period 520-518 BC. He was concerned with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple
(Mauch 1962b:942).
242
An ephah (hpa) is a dry meas -11
poses some textual problems with the vision of a woman in an ephah. This term in the vision probably implies a
container larger than the standard size (Sellers 1962a:107). A rmx), also a dry measure, is thus equal to
ten ephahs. The word is related to the Akkadian imeru, meaning "ass" and probably refers to a load an ass
should carry (Sellers 1962b:639).
243
2 Kings 23:6-7.
244
In the scenario of the court case Edelman questions the concession made for the virtual deification of Mary, in
the light of the longstanding absence of Yahweh's older "divine wife", Asherah (Edelman 2003:340-343).
245
Edelman 2003:344.
126
had an official status. The ambitious trbg used their influence to determine the next heir of
the throne.246 However, in the Egyptian, Hittite and Mesopotamian empires the mother of the
ruling king did indeed have a great influence. The Judean queen mother was greeted by the
king with gestures of honour, a throne was placed for her on the king's right-hand side,247 she
probably had a crown248 and was repeatedly mentioned together with the king. 249 The names
of most Judean queen mothers have been preserved in the biblical record and could be an in-
dication of their importance.250 The fact that the names of only two queen mothers of the
Northern Kingdom have been maintained 251 does not imply that they had less influence, but
could be ascribed to the negative attitude of the editors of the Hebrew Bible towards the
Northern Kingdom.252 The word hrybg, also meaning "lady" or "mistress", is a metaphor for
Babylon. 253
It has become clear that the ancient Israelite cult made far more allowances in religious beliefs
and practices than admitted by the exilic and post-exilic editors of the Masoretic Text. In the
male-dominated culture – as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible – significant information concern-
ing women's religious activities was not included. Comparative material is of little value as it
emanates from other patriarchal societies. Ackerman 254 proposes that the Israelite and Judean
queen mother had the official responsibility in the king's court to dedicate herself to the cult of
Asherah, the mother goddess. Olyan255 argues that Asherah and her cult symbol had a decid-
ed position in the Israelite religion, not only being legitimate in popular Yahwism, but in the
official cult as well – and maybe, even in very conservative circles. 'The prohibition and po-
lemics against Asherah and her cult symbol attest to their popularity in the cult of Yahweh in
Iron Age Israel.'256
The most explicit link for a queen mother with any cultic activity is expressed in 1 Kings
15:13.257 King Asa258 removed his mother Maacah – the queen mother – as hrybg, as 'she had
246
Ackerman 1993:385-386.
247
1 Kings 2:19.
248
Jeremiah 13:18.
249
Jeremiah 13:18; 22:26; 29:2.
250
For example, 1 Kings 14:21; 15:2, 10.
251
Zeruah, mother of Jeroboam (1 Ki 11:26) and Jezebel (1 Ki 21:4-7).
252
Szikszai 1962:975.
253
Holladay 1971:54.
254
Ackerman 1993:388.
255
Olyan 1988:74.
256
Olyan 1988:74.
257
See also 2 Chronicles 15:16.
258
King of Judah 911/10-870/69 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
127
made an abominable image for Asherah'. 259 Ackerman260 points out that scholars have sug-
gested that the alien element of Asherah worship had been introduced by Maacah into the Ju-
dean cult. The only substantiation for this claim is Maacah's presumed foreign ancestry. As
indicated in paragraph 3.2.2, multiple texts261 suggest that it was the norm in Judah during the
ninth to seventh centuries BC to worship both Yahweh and Asherah in the Jerusalem Temple.
In the same vein, the queen mother Jezebel – frequently accused of introducing the alien cult
of Asherah into the religion of the Northern Kingdom – worshipped Asherah, as an element of
the state cult,262 in her capacity as hrybg.
Nehushta, queen mother of Jehoiachin, 263 may also have been a participant in the cult of
Asherah. Her name is most probably derived from the root Xxn, "serpent".264 Human names
appropriated from the animal kingdom were common in the Semitic world. Nehushta proba-
bly carried an epithet of Asherah, whose association with serpents is well attested in many
sources.265 Maacah, Athalia and Nehushta from Judah, together with Jezebel from the North-
ern Kingdom, are four queen mothers identified in the Hebrew Bible as devotees of Asherah.
Scholars have noted that queen mothers from the South figured more prominently in the royal
court than those from the North. 266 To understand the role of the queen mother in the South,
Ackerman267 proposes that 'if the Judean royal ideology holds that Yahweh is the adopted fa-
ther of the king,268 then is it not possible that the adopted mother of the king is understood to
be Asherah as seen by many "as the consort of Yahweh"?' Yahweh was thus perceived as sur-
rogate father of the king and Yahweh's female consort, Asherah, as surrogate mother. Should
this be true, the implication is that the Judean queen mother was seen as the "earthly
259
1 Kings 15:13.
260
Ackerman 1993:390-392.
261
See footnotes on various relevant texts in § 3.2.2.
262
1 Kings 16:33 reports that Ahab erected an asherah in Samaria, participating in Ba‛al and Asherah worship.
263
2 Kings 24:8. Jehoiachin reigned three months in Jerusalem (597 BC) (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197). The
city was besieged by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Jehoiachin gave himself up to Nebuchadnezzar, together
with his wives, mother, servants, officials and palace officials. He was taken prisoner and all the temple treas-
ures were carried off to Babylon (2 Ki 24:10-15).
264
See § 3.3 on Eve.
265
See § 3.2.1 for Asherah's identification with Qudšu, the serpent-bearing goddess. In Proto-Semitic texts,
Asherah is called "the Lady of the serpent" (Ackerman 1993:397).
266
Ackerman 1993:396-399.
267
Ackerman 1993:400.
268
In the Egyptian culture the king of Egypt was regarded as a god as from the early Old Kingdom, as "the di-
vine principle of rule upon earth". He did not die, but continued to rule in the existence after his death. His con-
fidence as god-king contributed to Egypt's dominance in the early ancient world. The king was the god Horus,
and later became the son of Re (see footnotes describing Re/Ra in § 2.5 and § 2.7) (Wilson 1962:59). Horus, the
sky god, took on the form of a falcon whose right eye was the sun and left eye the moon (Willis 1993:44).
128
counterpart of Asherah" – the king's heavenly mother – and, therefore, depicted as patron of
Asherah, consequently being the second most powerful person in the royal court.269
Lipińsky270 indicates that towards the end of the tenth century BC Maacah, the Judean queen
mother, had made a tclpm271 – a phallic emblem or ithyphallic idol272 – for the asherah of
Jerusalem. This asherah was probably a pagan shrine. The tclpm should be connected to
the root blt, "to protrude". In the Septuagint it is translated by "coition". 273
3.2.4 Synopsis and conclusion: Asherah and synonymous female deities

It is evident, as seen in paragraph 3.2.1, that, possibly due to migrating nations, there had been
an integration of various deities from different pantheons, influencing one another. There
even may have been a common origin in some distant past. The assumption that a particular
cosmic goddess or "general goddess" was worshipped by many Ancient Near Eastern socie-
ties in the initial stages of the formation of a state or tribe, seems conceivable. Kletter, 274
however, is of the opinion that once a population group adopted a deity, it cannot be a "gen-
eral goddess", as 'it is adopted for specific needs and circumstances of that population, thus
becoming unique'. Ugaritic myths and rituals wherein Asherah appears denote her as a "great
goddess".275 Asherah was evidently originally a West Semitic goddess, but was at times – as
it frequently happened with deities from foreign countries – admitted to the Mesopotamian
pantheon. From the many inscriptions recovered and information gathered regarding Ancient
Near Eastern deities, it is obvious that the same gods and goddesses – with cognate names –
materialised in various pantheons. Canaanite Asherah, known as Athirat (’atrt), Athiratu or
Athirtu appears with synonymous names in different mythologies, covering more or less the
whole region of the Ancient Near East.
The earliest known reference to Asherah is in texts from Ebla, dated ca 2350 BC. As Ashratu,
consort of Amurru – warrior and storm god of the Amorites – she appears in the Mesopotami-
an cult. Her connection with Amurru attests her West Semitic origin. This cult was
269
Ackerman 1993:400-401.
270
Lipińsky 1972:113.
271
tclpm (transcribed as et) is described in Holladay (1971:209) as a "disgraceful image". See 1 Kings
15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16. King Manasseh of Jerusalem built an asherah that contained an idol or emblem
(Lipińsky 1972:113), a lysp (transcribed as pāsîl) (2 Ki 17:41) (Holladay 1971:294). Manasseh transferred the
lysp with its shrine to the Jerusalem Temple of Yahweh (Lipińsky 1972:113).
272
An ithyphallic symbol refers to the phallus carried in Bacchus festivals, a metre used for Bacchic hymns, a
poem in this metre or a licentious poem (Oxford University Press 1964a:463).
273
Lipińsky 1972:113.
274
Kletter 2001:198.
275
Korpel 2001:127.
129
probably brought to Mesopotamia by migrating Amorites. The el-Amarna Letters refer to the
king of Amurru (Amorites) as Abdi-Aširta, "servant of Aširta" (Asherah).
The Babylonian Athirat – called bēlet sēri – was portrayed as a West Semitic solar deity with
chthonic features.276 She was equated with Geštinanna, goddess of the Underworld. Both
were regarded as consorts of Amurru, and, as solar deity, Athirat spent her nights with Gešti-
nanna in the Netherworld.277 Šapšu was known as the solar deity of Ugarit. During the fif-
teenth century BC the sun was regarded as a female deity in Palestine. Šapšu and Athirat
were the only two deities called rabbatu, signifying a particular "community of honour" be-
tween them. Inscriptions from Taanach – a site populated by Canaanites – indicate that
Athirat was venerated there as solar deity.
Ašratum, characterised as a goddess of nomads – the Amurru/Amorites – was often declared

Ašratum bēlet sēri, "Lady of the Steppe". As goddess of the Steppe she was identified with
Amurru, the desert god. Athirat was venerated in Arabia – attested in Arabian sources – as
solar deity and consort to the moon gods ‛Amm and Wadd. The three major deities of the old
Arabian pantheon were the star god, lunar god and solar goddess. During the sixth century
BC the Babylonian moon god Sîn replaced the local lunar deity.
The Akkadian couple Amurru and Ašratum, compared with the Ugaritic Yrh and ’Atrt, may be
an indication that Athirat was originally a solar deity and consort of Yrh, the moon god. An
early Ugaritic myth indicates Athirat as the solar deity Athiratu, "who treads the heavens from
end to end". In the same vein, Athirat may be compared with an ancient South Arabian solar
deity Tānuf, "the one who moves to and fro". In time to come, Athirat lost her solar character
in the Ugaritic pantheon to become a maritime goddess, "who treads on the sea". Her full
name "The Lady who traverses the sea" was later abbreviated to Athirat. Mythological texts
from Ugarit, Tyre and Sidon confirm her maritime nature. Binger 278 disputes her connection
with the sea indicating that her Akkadian title bēlet sēri associates her with the steppes and
mountains.
The Hittite creator deity Elkurnirša corresponds to the Canaanite El. Elkurnirša has a North-
West Semitic background and his wife Ashertu is synonymous with Athirat. Canaanite
276
Chthonic refers to the Netherworld, the place of the dead (Deist 1990:44, 169). See footnote in § 3.2.1.
277
See Geštinanna and relevant footnote in § 3.2.1.
278
Binger 1997:43-45.
130
Asherah – or Athirat – referred to as El's consort in the Ugaritic texts, is also known as ’Elat,
"goddess". She is depicted in the texts as a kind of matriarch. A nurse of the twins Shah
and Shalem – progeny of El, born from two wives – is identified as Asherah-and-Rahmaya,
the "Great Mother goddess". Suggestions that Rahmaya refers to Anat and Athirat have been
disputed. Rhmy is probably another name for Athirat. The Ugaritic word ’atrt and Hebrew
cognate ’ašērâ were originally common nouns meaning "wife", "consort", literally meaning
"she-who-follows-in-the-footsteps" (of her husband).
Punic inscriptions refer to a supreme goddess tnt or Tinnit known during the seventh century
BC in Phoenicia. Although scholars have suggested identifying her with Asherah, Anat and
Astarte, her identity has been disputed. Athirat was also known as Qudšu in Egypt. On a re-
lief from Thebes she is referred to as qdš-‛strt-‛nt, indicating a fusion with the Canaanite god-
desses Astarte and Anat. At the end of the second millennium BC Asherah's popularity began
to decline as she merged with Anat and Astarte. She finally lost her position as independent
goddess in all Canaanite religions, but maintained it in the religion of the Israelites. Although
we do not have much data on the character of Athirat/Asherah, clay tablets from Ugarit are
informative on religious aspects.
Korpel279 is of the opinion that the Asherah mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Ugaritic
Asherah are identical. She was creatress and great mother next to her husband El. Asherah
was familiar in ancient Israel as her name was linked to that of El, who was an Israelite God.
She must have been acceptable to many Israelites who were in need for at least one goddess
next to Yahweh-El. As El was presented as the mighty "Ba‛al"280 'the pair Asherah-Baal came
into being as an alternative to a rigid concentration on one God'. 281 Scholars have reached a
reasonable agreement accepting that Asherah in the Masoretic Text refers to both an inde-
pendent goddess and her wooden cult symbol. Taking into consideration the dominant posi-
tion she has in the Hebrew Bible, as well as explicit references to her and Yahweh,282 she is
the only likely candidate in the syncretistic religious practices of Iron Age Judah and the
Northern Kingdom. Korpel283 indicates that, particularly within family religion, 'Asherah
kept her own, characteristic position, next to YHWH-El. Up till now there is no evidence that
she played an important role in the official cult'.
279
Korpel 2001:149.
280
Ba‛al meaning "lord".
281
Korpel 2001:150.
282
Inscriptions at Kuntillet‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom. See discussions in § 4.3.9 and § 4.3.10.
283
Korpel 2001:146.
131
Research on, and discussion of similar deities with cognate names – particularly with refer-
ence to Athirat/Asherah – active in various pantheons spread widely over the Ancient Near
East, substantiates my theory on pre-Israelite Ya-religions. Research on the emergence of
Athirat/Asherah in all the main pantheons of the Ancient Near East, clearly indicates that
there was interchangeability among the various nations and an acceptance of foreign deities
and rituals. Therefore, Ya-related names – attested from extra-biblical sources284 and discov-
ered over a large region in the Ancient Near East – to my mind, indicate the possibility of a
type of Ya-religion practised by different peoples in the pre-Israelite period. In addition there-
to, the position should be ascertained of marginal groups maintaining a monotheistic Yah-
wism, in contrast to a syncretism practised by the Israelites. Therefore it is essential to take
cognisance of the role of Ancient Near Eastern deities – particularly Asherah and Ba‛al – in
these syncretistic customs, with due consideration of information from extra-biblical sources,
the Masoretic Text and archaeological finds. In conclusion, I wish to affirm Miller's 285 words
that 'the question of the place of the goddess in the history of Yahweh will probably always
remain an elusive one.' Similarly, the influence of Asherah and the Canaanite religion on the
compilation of the Masoretic Text should not be overlooked.
A map – Map 1 – is included at the end of Chapter 3 to give a visual impression of the esti-
mated distribution of the deity Asherah/Athirat and goddesses with cognate names.
3.3 Relevant female deities

Cornelius286 indicates that with the literally thousands of iconographic representations of
women from the Ancient Near East, scholars have to ascertain which of these figures are god-
desses. Thereafter, the goddess's name and function in society and religion have to be estab-
lished. She can be identified by, inter alia, her wings, a horned 287 or Egyptian-type288 crown,
particular gestures and what she is holding in her hands. 289
Eve, first created female and therefore prototype of women, as well as progenitor of mankind,
has been veiled in myths and legends centuries before the Christian era. 290 The appearance of
some mythological aspects in the creation narratives led various scholars to conclude that a
284
See discussion in § 4.3.
285
Miller 1986:247.
286
Cornelius 2004:4-5.
287
See footnotes on "horns" in § 2.3 and § 2.14.3.
288
See footnotes on Hathor in § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach", and § 2.14.1.
289
See description in § 3.2.1 and § 3.3 of Qedeshet/Qudŝu holding snakes or flowers.
290
Haag et al 1994:19.
132
goddess lies behind Eve. 291 A Sumerian cuneiform sign TI signifies both the words "life" and
"rib", referring to a female named NIN.TI, which could be interpreted as "Lady of Life" or
"Lady of the Rib". The Sumerian NIN.TI is structurally similar to the aetiology292 for the des-
ignation hwx, that is, Eve, which is connected to the word yx or hyx, meaning life, to live.293
This association could have led to the legend that Eve had been moulded from the rib of the
first man, Adam. 294 The Sumerian myth furthermore recounts that Ninhursag(a)295 created
NIN.TI when Enki296 had a pain in his rib. 297 According to tradition, a significant link exists
between a name and its function, therefore suggesting that the name hwx is etymologically298
related to yx.299 Eve – known as H [hwx] – was recognised in Phoenicia, Mesopotamia
and Sumer as mother, guardian and goddess. As Phoenician goddess of the Underworld she
was invoked in inscriptions and possibly identified with Ishtar.300 In the Persian mythology
Meshiane was celebrated as the first woman and creator of life. 301 On a votive stela from the
Carthaginian necropolis302 a goddess is invoked, "Great Lady, Havvat, Goddess, Queen
(?)" ( ). could be related to the Hurrian Hebat, the consort of the Hur-
rian storm god Teshub303 [or Tsehub].304 Hebat or Heba is also indicated as a variant of Ish-
tar. Hittite myths, likewise, link her to the storm god Teshub as his consort. Hittite god-lists
moreover name her "queen of heaven, 305 Hebat of Halba, Hebat of Uda, Hebat of Kizzuwat-
na". In Hittite prayers she is addressed as "Sun goddess of Arinna". Although there is no ev-
idence that the biblical H , Eve, has been derived from the divine Hebat, such a possi-
bility should not be precluded. 306 The Old Babylonian Atra-Hasīs 307 epic seems to give a
291
Wyatt 1999c:316.
292
Aetiology (or Etiology) is an explanation offered on origins, therefore explaining an incomprehensible phe-
nomenon by means of a quasi-historical answer (Deist 1990:87).
293
Genesis 3:20, 'The man called his wife's name Eve [hwx], because she was the mother of all living [yx]'; hwx,
transcribed as H ; yx or hyx, transcribed as .
294
Gaster 1969:21. Genesis 2:21-22, 'So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he
slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the
man he made into a woman and brought her to the man'.
295
See footnote in § 2.4 on Ninhursag.
296
See footnote in § 2.3 on Enki.
297
Fishbane 1987b:199.
298
Etymology is 'the scholarly study of the historical development of the meanings of words and phrases' (Deist
1990:88).
299
Wyatt 1999c:316.
300
See § 3.4 and footnote on Ishtar in § 2.4.
301
Ann & Imel 1993:326, 329, 338.
302
Necropolis or cemetery; Carthage: see § 3.2.1, footnote on "Punic".
303
See § 3.5 on storm gods.
304
Wyatt 1999c:317.
305
See § 3.4.
306
Patai 1992:160-161.
307
Atra-Hasīs appears as wise man and hero in the Old Babylonian Flood Myth. The Sumerian god Enlil – who
symbolised the forces of nature (see footnote in § 2.3) – became intolerant of the clamour of the human beings,
which kept him awake. After several warnings Enlil sent a massive flood. Enki (see footnote in § 2.3) advised
Atra-Hasīs beforehand to build a boat to save himself and his family. In some versions of the myth Atra-Hasīs
133
thematic, as well as literal parallel to the Genesis title hwx who is yx lk ~a308 – "mother of
all the living" – which is similar to "bēlet-kala-ilī ", "mistress of all the gods", a title bestowed
on the creator goddess Mami.309 There is thus the possibility that the hidden figure of the
mother goddess Mami lies behind the character of Eve. In such an instance the Masoretic
Text demythologised the function of the goddess Mami without doing away with all her at-
tributes, but ascribed it to the first woman and human mother. Eve is thus not only created,
but also creator. A transparent added image is superimposed upon her.310
Williams311 is of the opinion that ancient interpreters undeniably made an association between
Eve and the serpent. Popular etymology in Genesis 3:20 links the word hwx to the root hyx.
Rabbinical exegesis associated the name hwx with the Aramaic aywx, serpent.312 Scholars
have commented on the Aramaic and Arabian , both meaning "serpent".313
Sakenfeld,314 however, does not agree that any wordplay with the name of Eve is significant,
pointing out that 'the actual derivation of the name remains uncertain'. The serpent (Xxn)315 in
Genesis 3:1 is described as 'more crafty than any other beast of the field'. The Xxn is the most
intriguing biblical serpent with mythological associations. 316 Its complex identity combined
its character as animal, human being with respect to the power of language and to be like the
gods with the ability of secret knowledge. 317 The resemblance between hwx (Eve) and the
Aramaic aywx (serpent) influenced speculation of an earlier form behind the present Genesis
is called Ziusadra. The world was submerged in a massive flood by rains lashing down seven days and nights.
Atra-Hasīs, his family and animals on the boat were saved. Utnapishtim is the name of the hero in the version of
the flood myth related in the Gilgamesh Epic (Storm 2001:32).
308
yx lk ~a, transcribed as ’ēm kol- . Genesis 3:20.
309
The title, yx lk ~a, is conferred on Eve after her creation and near the end of the Garden of Eden episode
when she was destined to be a fertile and procreating woman. At the same position in the topical progression of
the Atra-Hasīs epic – just before the first childbirth and at the conclusion of the creation episode – Mami is hon-
oured by the assembly of gods as "mistress of all the gods" (Kikawada 1972:33-35).
310
Kikawada 1972:33-35, 37.
311
Williams, A J 1977:358.
312
Childs 1962a:181-182. aywx transcribed as .
313
Wyatt 1999c:316.
314
Sakenfeld 1993:206-207.
315
Xxn, transcribed as
316
The generic word for a venomous snake in the Masoretic Text is Xxn. Cognate Semitic names are the Ugarit-
ic (serpent) and Arabian (serpent). The word Xxn appears thirty-one times in the Masoretic Text
(Hendel 1999:744). The plural form ~Xxn in Amos 9:3 refers to a sea-serpent, crocodile or dragon [Leviathan].
The bronze serpent idol referred to in 2 Kings 18:4 was !tXxn (Holladay 1971:235).
317
Hendel 1999:746-747. Cornelius (1997a:221, 224-225, 229) points out that artists are more than just illustra-
tors, as they also function as interpreters. Therefore it is interesting to note the way the serpent of Genesis 3 was
understood and subsequently represented visually. The question that had to be addressed was whether it was a
real serpent that could talk and walk upright. By their elucidation, visual artists not only illustrate, but also
comment on and interpret the text. In some representations a winged female serpent (fifteenth century), a ser-
pent with the head of a woman (twelfth century) or a serpent with the body of a woman is depicted. This could
be an exposition of the serpent as Eve. Sjöberg (1984:222-223) is of the opinion that Xxn in Genesis 3 was
clearly an animal that originally had four legs. The general meaning of Xxn is a reptile and therefore it may have
been a chameleon that seduced Eve.
134
narrative wherein only God, man and a serpent deity are involved. 318 The similarity was seen
as that of Eve being a serpent goddess.319 According to rabbinical literature, Rabbi Aha states
that – related to – is a justification for Eve's name.320 Bury and others321
mention that the declaration of the man (Adam) that Eve is "the mother of all living" 322 proves
that she was a serpent ancestress. The rabbis also indicated that poison or dirt, which was car-
ried through to her descendants, had been injected into Eve by the serpent.323
In the Ancient Near Eastern mythology and iconography the serpent can be identified with a
number of deities and demons. 324 Egyptian mythology presents the serpent as a dominant and
multivalent symbol. 325 Asherah's association with serpents is demonstrated in Proto-Sinaitic
texts wherein she is called dt btn, "Lady of the Serpent". The premise that the Phoenici-
an/Punic tnt – vocalised as "tannit", meaning serpent – could be identified with Asherah,
would thus also indicate her relationship with serpents.326 In the Qudšu iconography the ser-
pent is associated with a goddess – most likely Asherah, depicted naked, standing on a lion,
holding snakes in both hands, or, in some portrayals, holding flowers in the one hand. 327 The
~yprX328 are now generally understood to be winged serpents with certain human characteris-
tics. Various attempts have been made to clarify the meaning and background of the ~yprX.
Reasonable consensus has been reached that the Egyptian ureaus serpent was the primary
source of the seraphim-motif. 329
318
Layton 1997:29.
319
Wallace 1985:148.
320
Boyarin 1993:88-89. Rabbi Haninah comments in addition that 'when the woman was created, the Satan was
created with her' (Boyarin 1993:89). The creation narrative is discussed in the rabbinical Genesis Rabbah. See
also footnote in § 3.2.1, incorporating an explanation of the Babylonian Talmudic sedarim. Neusner (1985:xi-
xii) indicates that 'Genesis Rabbah presents the first complete and systematic Judaic commentary to the book of
Genesis'. It is a composite document compiled ca AD 400. According to Rabbi Joshua ben Qarhah the serpent
conceived a passion for Eve. It seems the rabbis studied the material in an attempt to answer some baffling ques-
tions concerning a fixed tradition.
321
322
Genesis 3:20.
323
Montefiore & Loewe 1938:306. The dirt injected by the serpent was removed from the Israelites by the ac-
ceptance of the Law.
324
Serpent symbolism was more diverse in Egyptian and Mesopotamian, than in Canaanite and Phoenician my-
thology and iconography (Hendel 1999:744-745). The serpent is associated with the Greek god of healing As-
clepios, and is preserved in the physician's caduceus which shows the serpent entwined around the staff of the
Greek god Hermes (Landman 1939:484). The serpent is commonly associated with magic and incantations –
particularly the cure or avoidance of snakebites. Symbolic connections, apart from healing, protection and re-
generation, include sexuality. The meanings are, however, unclear (Hendel 1999:744-745).
325
In Egyptian mythology the serpent appears as an adversary or a protector, signifying life and regeneration or
death and non-existence. The venomous Ureaus serpent [cobra] protected Egyptian kings and gods (Hendel
1999:744-745).
326
Ackerman 1993:397-398.
327
Cornelius 2004:45-47. See also § 3.2.1 for a description of Qedeshet (Qudšu).
328
~yprX, transcribed as seraphim. Isaiah 6:2-3.
329
Mettinger 1999a:742-743. In the Masoretic Text the word @rX appears three times in the Pentateuch and
four times in Isaiah. Etymologically it refers to ―the one who burns". Iconographic evidence indicates that the
135
The Ancient Near Eastern people regarded the serpent as the embodiment of wisdom and,
therefore, uncovering the way to knowledge. 'The wisdom element surrounding the serpent
may also serve as a parody on the wisdom schools, showing the dire consequences of their
over-reliance on wisdom and failure to observe the direct ordinances of Yahweh.' 330 Deist331
is of the opinion that the serpent could be allegorically interpreted as human wisdom in the
event of Genesis 2 and 3 originating during the reign of David and Solomon.
The mythical Lilith who persisted in Jewish traditions as late as the Middle Ages, reappearing
in the late nineteenth to twentieth century Women's Liberation Movement, was linked to Eve
by way of being the alleged first wife of Adam. 332 Lilith originated from the Sumerian my-
thology as a demon of desolation, associated with the Babylonian Lilîtu.333 Mesopotamian
Semites described her as a hideous monster with a serpent in each hand. 334
In the Masoretic Text there is no direct reference to the Ugaritic goddess Anat(h) (‛nt).335
There are, however, a few possible allusions to her.336 Available evidence indicates that she
was originally a North-West Semitic goddess presented in the Ugaritic texts as a fertility god-
dess and consort of Ba‛al. Some scholars, however, argue that there is no clear reference in
ureaus motif was familiar on scarabs and seals in Palestine, from the Hyksos Period to the end of the Iron Age
(Mettinger 1999a:742-743). The Hyksos Period refers to a time of political turmoil in Egypt at the end of the
Thirteenth Dynasty [1782-1650 BC] and between the Middle Kingdom [2040-1782 BC] and the New Kingdom
[1570-1070 BC]. During that period [ca 1650-1570 BC] Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos, Semitic-speaking peo-
ple from the Levant who infiltrated Egypt and eventually took over (Hoffmeier 1994:270). Holladay (1971:355)
interprets @rX as a fiery serpent (Nu 21:6; Dt 8:15), a winged serpent (unidentifiable) (Is 14:29; 30:6), a bronze
serpent (Nu 21:8-9) and a mythological six-winged creature (Is 6:2-6).
330
Kruger 2001b:230.
331
Deist 1986:86.
332
Ancient Jewish legends developed around the mythical and mystical figure of Lilith, probably to resolve the
inconsistency of two different creation narratives in Genesis. According to the rabbis, Lilith was created as Ad-
am's first wife – in accordance with the first creation narrative in Genesis 1:27. When Lilith left Adam, Eve was
created – in concurrence with the second creation narrative in Genesis 2:22-23. For a detailed description of the
figure of Lilith, see Mondriaan (2005:752-762).
333
Storm 2001:50.
334
Gaster 1969:579.
335
Day (2000:136-141) mentions that there are dubious allusions to Anat in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars have
suggested that the sound of shouting/singing – ‛annôt – in Exodus 32:18 refers to the goddess Anat. However,
this is speculation without supporting evidence. Scholars likewise argue that 'the description of Deborah in
Judges 5 has been influenced by imagery associated with the goddess Anat found in the Ugaritic texts'; in this
instance five parallels are indicated, inter alia, that, like Anat, Deborah was a leader of warriors (Day 2000:137).
A number of scholars maintain that the expression, 'I look upon a virgin', in Job 31:1 is an allusion to the "virgin
Anat". Day (2000:140) is not convinced that the woman in the "Song of Songs" – as has been claimed – is the
goddess Anat. See footnote in § 3.2.1 on Rahmy, a possible reference to the virgin Anat.
336
Day (2000:132-136) is of the opinion that possible references to Anat mainly occur in place names, such as
Beth-anath (Jos 19:38; Jdg 1:33); Beth-anoth (Jos 15:59); Anathoth (Jos 21:18; 1 Ki 2:26; Is 10:30; Jr 1:1; 11:21,
23; 32:7, 8, 9). The name Shamgar ben Anat appears twice in the book of Judges (Jdg 3:31; 5:6). According to
1 Samuel 31:10 Saul's armour was taken to the temple of Ashtaroth at Beth-shan after his death. There is the
possibility that the temple in question was that of Anat which has since been discovered at Beth-shan.
136
the Ugaritic texts that she has ever been a reproductive deity. 337 Handy338 indicates that narra-
tives allegedly signifying Anat's fertility role are so damaged that scholars are inconclusive
about this function. Some Ugaritic texts describe Anat and Ba‛al copulating, announcing the
birth of bovine children, yet, she is also depicted as his virgin sister and his consort. The
Egyptians – with their well-structured hierarchy of gods – apparently found the coexistence of
three goddesses, Asherah – consort of El – together with Anat and Astarte, both sisters and
wives of Ba‛al, very confusing. 339 Of all the deities represented in narratives concerned with
Ba‛al, Anat appears as the most active and physically powerful. 340 Day341 mentions that
mythological texts portray Anat as a volatile and independent warrior and hunter; she was ac-
tive in male spheres of combat and hunting. 342 In a well-known Ugaritic text her bloodthirsty
nature is explicitly exhibited. 343 Phoenician inscriptions found in Cyprus mention Anat on a
spearhead, thus attesting to her martial associations. Anat's vengeance on her enemies has
been compared by scholars to Yahweh's action on a number of occasions, as described in the
Hebrew Bible. 344 Cassuto345 notes that notwithstanding her shocking cruelty towards her en-
emies, she was regarded as goddess of life and fertility. The epithet, "mother of nations" is
applied to Anat in some Ugaritic writings. This designation may be an allusion to the percep-
tion of fertility. 'Her beauty and grace were deemed the acme of perfection.'346 During the
Hellenistic Period she was identified with the Greek warrior and virgin goddess Athena.347
337
Day 1999:36-37.
338
Handy 1994:103-105.
339
Albright 1968:128, 135.
340
Handy 1994:104.
341
Day 1999:37-39.
342
See footnote in § 3.2.1 on the "legend of Aqhat" and the symbol of Ugaritic masculinity.
343
KTU 1.3 ii:3-30 (Day 1999:37). According to this passage in the Ugaritic Ba‛al myth, Anat 'wreaks havoc on
her enemies', being up to her knees in their blood (Day 2000:141). Stern (1994:120-124) indicates that there are
striking points of contact between the "bloodbath" text and Psalm 23. The following are mentioned: the deity,
Anat, arranges tables for her soldiers, while the enemy soldiers are in the house (Ps 23:5 'You [the deity Yahweh]
prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies'); some of Anat's slaughter takes place in a valley (Ps
23:4 'Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil'); Anat pours "oil of
peace" (Ps 23:5b 'you anoint my head with oil'); much of the "bloodbath" action takes place in Anat's house
where the gates are closed but open later to receive her favoured warriors, soldiers and heroes (Ps 23:6b 'and I
shall dwell in the house of the LORD'). Psalm 23 clearly has a mythic background, the Anat text being 'a source
of poetic inspiration for a Hebrew poet' … but, in this instance 'the "bloody imagery of Yahweh" has receded into
the background' (Stern 1994:123-124).
344
Isaiah 34:6-10; 63:1-6; Ezekiel 39:17-20; Zephaniah 1:7-18; Zechariah 9:15.
345
Cassuto 1971:64-65.
346
Cassuto 1971:65.
347
Cassuto 1971:65. Athena was a protector during war and charitable in time of peace. She was responsible for
the arts, literature and practical arts. Athena was identified with Anaïtis (see discussion in this paragraph on
Anahita) and with Minerva, the Roman and Etruscan war goddess (Ann & Imel 1993:154, 195).
137
Inscriptions of Ramesses II348 provide Egyptian evidence for Anat, called the "Mistress or La-
dy of Heaven". Ramesses claimed her support in battle in his right to universal rule. He fur-
thermore professes a mother-son relationship with her.349 A deity Anat-Yahu is mentioned in
fifth century BC Aramaic Elephantine texts.350 The Hyksos351 were probably instrumental in
the cult of Anat reaching Egypt. Anat was regarded as one of the greatest goddesses in Egypt
during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties. 352 Yahu (Yahweh) was the prime deity wor-
shipped by the Jews of Elephantine. Anat-Yahu, literally meaning Anat of Yahu, seems to in-
dicate that Anat was seen as Yahweh's consort. Despite opposing arguments, reasonably con-
clusive evidence indicates that Anat was Ba‛al's consort. Thus, if Yahweh could be equated
with Ba‛al, it would be natural to surmise Anat being Yahweh's consort. These Elephantine
Jews also worshipped Anat-Bethel, -Bethel and Eshem-Bethel. In a treaty, ca 675 BC,
between Esar-haddon of Assyria and Baal, king of Tyre, a deity Anat-Bethel is attested. In
the light of Anat-Bethel being the name of a deity, the same could be said of Anat-Yahu, and
therefore it seems 'indubitable that the goddess Anat, in the form of Anat-Yahu, did function
as Yahweh's wife amongst the Jews at Elephantine in the fifth century BCE'.353
The fertility goddess Anahita,354 source of all waters on earth, of human reproduction and of
the cosmic sea, is a figure of ancient Persian myth. 355 Influenced by Chaldean astrology,
heavenly bodies were held in awe and Anahita was identified with the planet Venus. 356 In the
Zend-Avesta, she is portrayed as a goddess of war who drives a chariot pulled by four white
horses – wind, rain, cloud and hail. Possibly equivalent to Anat, she was known as goddess of
love and war in Babylon and as "Lady of Heaven" in Egypt. The bull was sacred to her. 357
Ahurani – meaning "she who belongs to Ahura"358 – was known as fertility and water goddess
348
Ramesses II: 1279-1212 BC (Clayton 1994:146).
349
Day 1999:40.
350
See discussion on Anat-Yahu in § 4.3.13. See § 2.14.5 for a discussion on the Jews at Elephantine.
351
For an explanation of the Hyksos Period, see footnote on seraphim, § 3.3.
352
Cassuto 1971:65. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties: 1570-1185 BC (Clayton 1994:98).
353
Day 2000:142-144.
354
Also known as Anaïtis; the Greek name for Anahita or Anat (Ann & Imel 1993:317).
355
Willis 1993:67. Apart from inscriptions and documentary evidence from neighbouring civilisations, Persian
cults and myths are known to us only through the Zend-Avesta. The Iranians (Persians) developed from a branch
of the Indo-European race known as Aryan (noble). The religion of classical Persia arose from a mingling of
Assyro-Babylonian and Aryan beliefs (Guirand 1996:309-310). The Zend-Avesta – Avesta-va-Zend, texts with
interpretation – are sacred writings of the Zoroastrians. Zend, or Old Iranian, was the language of the Avesta,
forming with Old Persian the Iranian group of Indo-European languages (Oxford University Press 1964b:1020).
356
Guirand 1996:311.
357
Ann & Imel 1993:317.
358
Known as Ahura-Mazda[h], or alternatively as Ormazd. Ahura was the highest divine entity in Zarathustra's
teachings in ancient Persia. As creator of the sky, earth and men, he was, according to ancient inscriptions, the
greatest of the gods. The evil spirit Ahriman was his opponent (Dresden 1962a:72). Zarathustra (Zarathushtra)
was the prophet in ancient Iran and founder of the Zoroastrian religion in the sixth century BC (Dresden
138
of ancient Persia. Apart from being Ahura's daughter, she was also his consort.359 Ahurani
was beneficial for healing and prosperity. 360
3.4 Queen of Heaven

'A goddess called Queen of Heaven appears briefly in Jeremiah 7:17-18, and then again in
Jeremiah 44:15-24.'361 Jeremiah attributes the catastrophe of the Exile to the veneration of the
Queen of Heaven,362 while the women of Jerusalem and Judah ascribe the disaster to their
lack of offerings to the Queen of Heaven.363
Currently the most popular view regarding the identity of the Queen of Heaven is that the des-
ignation refers to Astarte. Apart from being called "Lady of Heaven" – along with Anat, Ish-
tar and Qudšu/Asherah – Astarte is the Canaanite goddess 'most frequently associated with
the heavens'.364 The name of the deity Astarte is found in Ugaritic as ‛ttrt (Athtart), in Phoe-
nician as ‛štrt (Ashtart) and in Hebrew ‛Aštōret (singular) or ‛Aštārôt (plural). The masculine
form ‛Athtar, ‛Ashtar, is probably the name of the planet Venus, and of the Akkadian goddess
Ishtar. The male deity is thus the morning star while, as in the Greek tradition, the goddess is
the evening star.365 Ashtart is often mentioned in the Ugaritic texts, but only rarely in the
mythological texts.366 In the Hebrew Bible she is referred to as Ashtaroth of the Philistines
and Ashtoreth of the Phoenician Sidonians. 367 The plural form Ashtaroth in 1 Samuel 31:10
could be interpreted as the singular Ashtoreth; the intensive plural is occasionally used in the
Hebrew Bible for divinities or divine-like phenomena. 368 The altered plural form Ashtaroth
1962b:935). The Persians recognised one supreme god Ahura-Mazda ("Wise Lord"), the all-embracing sky
(Willis 1993:67).
359
Van Reeth 1994:12.
360
Ann & Imel 1993:316.
361
De Villiers 2002:620.
362
Jeremiah 7:17-18 'Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of
heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.'
363
Jeremiah 44:15-24. Jeremiah 44 focuses on a confrontation between the prophet Jeremiah and Judean refu-
gees in Egypt after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Jeremiah attributes the catastrophe to the wrath of Yahweh
provoked by the worshipping of "other gods" by inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. The refugees indicate that
they have always worshipped the Queen of Heaven with positive effects. Since they terminated this veneration
(possibly with Josiah's cult reform – 2 Kings 22-23) they have experienced the repugnance of the goddess. From
the time they had ceased their offerings she ended her protection and patronage of the people of Judah with cata-
strophic results (Becking 2001:197-199). Bury et al (1925:427) indicate that the "shewbread" (Bread of Pres-
ence) placed in the outer chamber at the Temple, was actually food dedicated to the deities. The Queen of Heav-
en had her cakes (Jr 7:18) and the "table was set for Fortune" and the "cups filled for Destiny" (Is 65:11).
364
Day 2000:148-149.
365
See § 3.2.1 on the twins Shah and Shalem, Dawn and Dusk.
366
Wyatt 1999b:109-110.
367
1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13. A Philistine temple for Ashtaroth is mentioned in 1 Samuel 31:10.
368
Machinist 2000:60. The intensive plural is most notably used in the case of the Israelite God.
139
could also be a deliberate scribal distortion of Astarte.369 Ashtoreth – who was actually Astar-
te – was known in Canaan as the "Great Goddess", and as the Ancient Near Eastern "Queen of
Heaven".370 She was known to the Assyrians and Babylonians as Ashtar, goddess of fertility
and love.371 Astarte, as chief Phoenician goddess at Tyre and Sidon, was taken along to new
colonies established by the Phoenicians.372 Astarte's influence and prominence were not con-
fined to the Mesopotamian and Palestinian cults, but may have reached as far as Edom. Alt-
hough the deities to whom the Edomites dedicated their votive plaques and figurines are not
easy to identify, some may represent the goddess Astarte, who was probably known in Edom
along with the Canaanite deities Ba‛al/Hadad and El.373 One of the four temples in the Egyp-
tian city Per-Ramesses374 was that of Astarte, placed to the east – a direction appropriate for a
Semitic goddess.375
Sumerian Inanna376 and Akkadian Ishtar were the major Mesopotamian goddesses of love,
war and the planet Venus. The Semitic name Ishtar was pronounced Eshtar in earlier times.
Ishtar is derived from the masculine ‛attar,377 and attested as the Canaanite feminine Astarte.
As patroness of independent women and prostitutes she was also the spouse and lover of the
king with whom she participated in the ritual of sacred marriage. 378 Ishtar was probably
called Išhara during the marriage rites. dIšhara,379 one of the names of Ishtar/Inanna, is also
written Ašhara or Ešhara. Her astrological constellation was the scorpion. 380 She was often
portrayed with horns381 of the crescent moon – believed to govern growth and rebirth382 – and
369
Hadley 1997:172.
370
Astarte was also known as Innin, Inanna, Nana, Nut, Anat, Anahita, Ishtar, Isis, Au Set, Ishara, Asherah, Ash-
tart, Attoret, Attar and Hathor. Each name of this multi-named "Divine Ancestress", denoted – in the various
languages and dialects – veneration for her as "Great Goddess" (Stone 1979:124).
371
372
Astarte had a temple in Memphis, Egypt, and temples at Carthage. An alabaster statuette of her had been
found in Spain (Cavendish 1985:168).
373
Bartlett 1989:194.
374
The famous city Per-Ramesses, capital of Ramesses II [1279-1212 BC], was applauded on a stela in the great
temple of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel, as well as in poetical compositions preserved on papyri. Papyrus Anastasi
II refers to the temple of Astarte (Finegan 1998:236). In Papyrus Anastasi III the city Pi-Ramessu – House of
Ramesses – is praised, inter alia, as follows: 'I have found it well very, very excellently. It is a perfect estate,
without equal, with the layout of Thebes. Re himself is the one who founded it' (Hallo & Younger 2002:15).
375
Finegan 1998:236.
376
Inanna was the daughter of the moon god Nanna/Sîn and his wife Ningal. Inanna was the sister of the solar
deity Uta/Shamash. She was depicted as the wife of various fertility gods, as well as the wife of An, the sky god
(Abusch 1999:452). See also footnotes on Inanna and Eštar in § 2.3; see footnotes on Shamash in § 2.4 and
§ 2.14.6 and the discussion in § 3.6.
377
‛Attar was a masculine deity from southern Arabia and Ugarit (Abusch 1999:452).
378
Abusch 1999:452-453.
379 d
Išhara or dingir Išhara: see footnote on dingir(d) – an Akkadian determinative sign – in § 3.2.1.
380
Becking 1999c:450.
381
See footnotes in § 2.3 and § 2.14.3 for the function of horns.
382
Cavendish 1985:170.
140
as a naked woman with long hair, holding her breasts.383 Some scholars interpret the rain
goddess – identified by her complete nudity – as being Ishtar. Akkadian cylinder seals384 por-
tray the storm god and his consort, the rain goddess – bringer of rain. Both are mounted on a
lion-griffin, the storm god preceded by a naked goddess. 385 Van Loon386 indicates that the
Syrian Ishtar – or Astarte – is normally depicted in partial nudity. Clay figurines of Ish-
tar/Inanna/Astarte from the Mesopotamian area portray her in a characteristic breast-offering
pose, known among archaeologists as the "Ishtar pose". This pose suggests her function of
nourishment. As described in Jeremiah 44, Judeans were reluctant to abandon her 387 – proba-
bly considering the fertility feature. Ishtar was known as "Goddess of Love", "Mother god-
dess with bountiful breasts" and "Goddess of War".388
Mesopotamian Ishtar is identified with DIL-BAT, the Sumerian name for the planet Venus.
At the same time, ‛Attar, chief god of the South Arabian pantheon and astral deity, is por-
trayed as the planet Venus. Among the Canaanites ‛Attart (Astarte) was a goddess. The male
‛Attar was probably considered to be the Morning Star and the female ‛Attar the Evening
Star.389 A number of Akkadian texts seem to indicate that Ishtar was regarded being androg-
ynous, 390 while fourteenth century BC Canaanites considered ‛Attar to be androgynous. A
text from Mari refers to a male Ishtar. 391 Some scholars concede that Isaiah 14:12-15 draws
upon a mythological text which originated outside Palestine. Certain interpretations of the
Ugaritic ‛Attar myths392 have been equated with aspects of the Isaiah poem. ‛Attar of the
Ugaritic myths has been compared to rxX-!b llyh, 'O Day Star, son of Dawn'.393 However,
there is a problem to correlate ‛Attar and rxX-!b llyh as the Ugaritic texts clearly indicate
that both ‛Attar and were progeny of El and Athirat.394 Therefore ‛Attar cannot be the
son of rxX.395 Heiser396 indicates that 'since Venus (Hēlēl ben- ible in the light
383
384
Dated ca 2275-2150 BC.
385
Van Loon 1990:364. Griffin (also known as griffon or gryphon): 'a creature with a lion's body and an eagle's
wings and head' (Wehmeier 2005:655). See § 2.13, subtitle "Bull figurines", as well as the relevant footnote on
the "naked rain goddess" in the same paragraph.
386
Van Loon 1990:363.
387
Walker 1988:206.
388
389
See discussion and footnote in § 3.2.1 on Shah and Shalem and Margalith's (1994:110) identification of the
names as referring to Dawn and Dusk. Dahood (1958:88), however, does not identify the Morning Star and
Evening Star with and Shalem.
390
See footnote in § 3.2.1 for an explanation of "androgynous" and "hermaphrodite".
391
Dahood 1958:85-88.
392
KTU 1.2.III.1-24 and KTU 1.6.1.43-67 (Heiser 2001:355).
393
Isaiah 14:12a.
394
See § 3.2.1 on and Shalem.
395
Heiser 2001:354-356.
396
Heiser 2001:356.
141
of the dawn before the actual appearance of the sun over the horizon, Venus could be under-
The author of Isaiah 14:12 obviously refers to Venus – the morning star – by its epithet "Shin-
ing One", and therefore "Dawn" is not personified in Isaiah.
A designation of Ishtar – Annunītum – became an independent deity, retaining her former

character as war goddess. An Old Babylonian goddess of Mari – Dīrītum – went through an
analogous transformation. She started off as a manifestation of Ishtar, establishing her own
identity and rising to prominence in the Mari pantheon. An Old Babylonian text explicitly
equates Dīrītum with Ishtar, reading "Ishtar, the one of Dir", thereby confirming the name
Dīrītum as an appellative for Ishtar.397 It is not surprising that the cult of Dīrītum spread be-
yond Dir to a number of other cities – particularly to Mari and Zurubbān398 – considering the
antiquity of the cult of Ishtar at Mari and, notably, Dīrītum being a manifestation of Ishtar.
The best indication of Dīrītum's prominence was exhibited by the Dīrītum festival. 399
Shaushka – dŠa-(u)-uš-ga – was an important Hurrian goddess; the ideographic form of her
name being dIŠTAR(-ka). She was associated with Ishtar of Nineveh, with whom she shared
some characteristic features. She was located particularly in southern Anatolia and northern
Syria and very popular during the time of the Hittite Empire. According to some texts, Anu400
– or Sîn401 – was her father, and Teshub – the Hurrian and Hittite storm god – her brother.
Shaushka had male and female characteristics, 402 and was dressed in both male and female
attire, with male attributes such as an axe. According so some Hurrian texts, magicians ac-
quired their power from her. Although there is no direct reference to Shaushka in the Hebrew
Bible, she may be relevant for some biblical texts. 403 Her character was probably not
397
Ishtar was often named after the place where her cult had been established. Examples are: Dīrītum, Hišami-
tum and Kišitum. Dīrītum, as Ishtar, was therefore originally at home in the city of Dir. The city of Dir is ap-
proximately 11 km south of Mari. The antiquity of the cult of Ishtar in the Kingdom of Mari is well-attested
(Hoskisson 1996:261-262).
398
Zurubbān lies between Terqa and Mari (Hoskisson 1996:262).
399
Hoskisson 1996:261-265. The king of Mari, as well as other kings and officials, attended the Dīrītum festival
at Dir from the sixteenth to the nineteenth of the month Kiskissum. This festival was probably held annually at
the same time with the king of Mari in attendance. Dīrītum possibly rose to supremacy during the reign of Zim-
ri-Lim (see relevant footnote in § 2.4) who took interest in the cult to the extent that he issued orders that all of-
ferings to Dīrītum should be at Mari. The number of sheep consigned to Dīrītum on the Mari-list eclipsed that
consigned to Ishtar (Hoskisson 1996:263-266).
400
See footnote in § 2.14.6 on the "Babylonian Creation Myth", and footnote in § 3.2.1 on the "Sumerian cunei-
form sign for heaven".
401
See § 3.6 on astral deities.
402
See footnote in § 3.2.1, incorporating "androgynous" and "hermaphrodite".
403
Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids a woman to dress like a man, and vice versa; it could be linked to the idea of Shau-
shka changing peoples' sexuality (Hutter 1999b:759).
142
unknown in ancient Israel as she was linked to the Queen of Heaven. Archaeological material
indicates that she was familiar within the biblical environment.404
Symbols and figures on seals may serve as criteria for chronology. Assyrian iconography on
seals, found in Israel and dated between the eighth and seventh centuries BC, exhibits a god-
dess – identified as Ishtar – within a circle. Depictions of Ishtar on first millennium monu-
mental works are uncommon. Mesopotamian literature refers to her with various designa-
tions, mostly relating to her different cult centres. These epithets represent her diverse char-
acters – each portrayal with its own peculiarities. 'Anthropomorphic 405 representations of
Ištar found in Israel depict her only within a circle.' 406 She is identified by stars – regarded as
her symbols – as well as light radiating from her, often standing on a lion. Iconographic rep-
resentations of Ishtar frequently show her together with women – thus corroborating the role
she played in the cult particularly carried out by women. 407 In conclusion, Ornan408 indicates
that Assyrian iconography substantiates the prominent role Ishtar played in both Israel and
Judah. She and Astarte are the most plausible candidates for identification with the Queen of
Heaven. Pinnock409 mentions that small jars – dated between 1800 and 1650 BC – have been
excavated at Syrian Ebla. These jars were decorated with unusual superimposed bird heads
and naked female figurines with grotesque faces. 410 The jars are not very refined and 'proba-
bly the expression of a popular, rather than official religious activity, related to the cult of Ish-
tar, the great patron deity of Old Syrian Ebla'. 411
After many attempts by scholars to identify the Queen of Heaven, Schmitz412 indicates that
some consensus has been reached that the title refers to the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar.
After 722 BC,413 the Neo-Assyrian Empire imposed an official state religion on Israel, thus
introducing some Mesopotamian cults – probably including that of Ishtar. Consequently, her
cult was also brought into Judah. However, scholars have recently accepted that the Queen of
404
Hutter 1999b:758-759.
405
Anthropomorphic: see relevant footnote in § 1.2.
406
Ornan 2001a:239.
407
Ornan 2001a:240, 242, 246, 248. For a discussion of the depiction of Ishtar on different types of seals, see
Ornan (2001a:235-252).
408
Ornan 2001a:251.
409
Pinnock 2000:121-128.
410
For a further description, see § 2.3.
411
Pinnock 2000:128.
412
Schmitz 1992:587.
413
During the reign of Hoshea in the Northern Kingdom of Israel (730/29-722/21 BC), Samaria was besieged
and captured by the Assyrians. This put an end to the state of Israel. A number of Israelites were deported and
replaced by inhabitants from Babylon, Hamath, Cuthah and a few other cities. A syncretistic-type of Yahweh-
worship ensued (Jagersma 1994:159-160). See description in 2 Kings 17:24-33.
143
Heaven in Judah has to be identified with the Canaanite Ashtoreth, also known as Astarte.
Her veneration by the Judeans included burning incense to her, pouring out libations to her
and preparing cakes for her 414 – the latter activity being the strongest evidence that her cult
was of Mesopotamian origin. 415 However, this is not an indication that the practices in Judah
were established in their original Mesopotamian form. Elements from the Mesopotamian re-
ligion became intermingled with the syncretistic Palestinian cults. Nevertheless, although the
title "Queen of Heaven" in the Hebrew Bible could refer to the Palestinian Astarte, it is un-
likely that associations with Ishtar would have been absent. The offering of cakes or loaves
was an important feature in the devotion to many different deities, particularly to the Mesopo-
tamian Ishtar, who had 'a special relation to the planting and harvesting of cereal crops in
Mesopotamia'. 416 According to Rast,417 there are two possibilities regarding the cakes pre-
pared for the goddess. In Judah the cult was particularly associated with women, but could
have involved entire families.418
Regarding the question of the identity of the Queen of Heaven – by which biblical scholars
have long been "plagued" – Ackerman419 confirms that no consensus has been reached. There
are, however, indications that the Queen of Heaven could be identified with Canaanite Astarte
– the West Semitic equivalent of Ishtar. Sparse details in the Hebrew Bible do not contribute
to this identification. Suggestions to equate Anat with the Queen of Heaven have been reject-
ed.420 Ackerman421 proposes 'that the Queen of Heaven is a syncretistic deity whose character
incorporates aspects of west Semitic Astarte and east Semitic Ištar'.
Except for 1 Samuel 31:10, all texts in the Hebrew Bible mentioning Astarte appear in deu-
teronomistic polemic. 422 In the same way as the distinction between the goddess Asherah and
414
Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19.
415
Scholars are obviously not clear on the identification of the Queen of Heaven. On the one hand, they accept
Canaanite Astarte to be the likely candidate, yet, at the same time, indicating that "preparing cakes for the Queen
of Heaven" is evidence for her Mesopotamian origin – and therefore recognise her as Ishtar. During the Hellen-
istic and Roman periods she was identified with Venus-Aphrodite (Negev & Gibson 2001:61). Venus, goddess
of love and beauty, was associated with the Greek fertility goddess Aphrodite (Van Reeth 1994:10, 261).
416
Rast 1977:169.
417
Rast 1977:171-172. The dough could have been formed by hand in the shape of a goddess (figurine) or in a
symbol representing her, such as a star or crescent. The second possibility is the employing of a mould in a par-
ticular shape. A mould, portraying a nude female, was excavated at Mari. For more information on the 'dough
that was knead' and the 'cakes that were baked', see Rast (1977:167-176).
418
The loyalty of the women to this cult (Jr 44:17-19) 'raises questions about the marginal status of women in the
Yahwistic cultus affirmed in the Law and Prophets of the Hebrew Bible' (Schmitz 1992:587).
419
Ackerman 1992:8-10, 16.
420
For a discussion of the possibility to identify Anat as the Queen of Heaven, and reasons for rejecting such an
identification, see Ackerman (1992:13-20).
421
Ackerman 1992:34.
422
For a detailed discussion of the various relevant texts, see Müller (2001:429-432).
144
the asherah-pole became totally obscured in the time of the Deuteronomist and Chronicler,
Astarte was de-deified in the biblical text. She is identified as a foreign deity in the Deuter-
onomistic History. The Chronicler either did not know of the existence of Astarte in Israel, or
felt she was irrelevant for the history of Israel and Judah. It is significant that Astarte shifted
from a well-known and widely-worshipped deity in Palestine to a Hebrew fertility idiom423
and eventually 'total silence on the part of the latest biblical writers'. 424 Astarte and Ba‛al are
sometimes paired in the biblical text, usually in a negative, polemical sense. The term "Ba‛al
and Astarte" is a symbolism of polytheism in general, rather than referring to the deities in
particular.425
Two conflicting ideologies are evident between Jeremiah – devoted to the Yahweh-alone wor-
ship – and the flourishing cult of the Queen of Heaven. The ideology of the Judeans incorpo-
rated various religious practices in their worship, thereby anticipating all aspects of favoura-
ble divine power.426 De Villiers427 indicates that 'fact and fiction seem to be intertwined in the
book Jeremiah' and that events are not submitted 'objectively and factually' but in a highly
'subjective and emotional style'. De Villiers 428 poses the question whether the Queen of
Heaven existed or whether she was a literary construct. However, extra-biblical sources ratify
the existence of her cult, indigenous even to Israel and Judah.
A map – Map 2 – is included at the end of Chapter 3 to give a visual impression of the esti-
mated distribution of the manifestations of the deity Queen of Heaven as Ishtar and cognate
names.
3.5 Storm gods and warrior gods

As so many deities share common characteristics – inter alia, the storm, warrior and solar
gods – it is basically impossible to compartmentalise them separately. Therefore paragraphs
3.5 and 3.6 should be read in conjunction with each other.
423
An idiom in Deuteronomy (Dt 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51) refers to the fertility of the flock. The flock's productive-
ness is called "ashterot"[twrtX[] (astartes) (Fulco 1987a:471). In the present form of the texts all indications
of earlier deities seem to have been lost. In the case of disobedience, Yahweh will make the fruit of the livestock
and the ground the spoil of the Neo-Babylonians (Müller 2001:432).
424
Hadley 1997:173-175, 178.
425
Hadley 1997:173.
426
Ackerman 1992:34-35.
427
428
145
Since the second millennium BC the storm was conferred on a particular divinity in the As-
syro-Babylonian mythology. This divinity, Adad – god of lightning and the tempest – let
loose the storms and the winds. At the same time, he brought the beneficent wind with its
abundant rains. He also had the prerogative to reveal the future. His associate in these vari-
ous functions was the goddess Shala.429 In the Assyrian version of the Flood Myth in the Gil-
gamesh Epic,430 Adad is the one who brought about the storm and rains. Adad and the solar
deity Shamash431 were often linked as guardians of the heavens. They were the two gods in-
voked by divination432 priests, and, together with Marduk433 – god of Babylon – were consid-
ered the triad of divine judges.434 Adad was related to Dagan435 with whom he shared his
consort Shala. Scholars have suggested that Adad and Dagan were originally one god, and
that Adad, "thunder", was the initial title of Dagan.436 Ba‛al as ’a-da is attested in second
millennium BC Ebla texts and in the ca 1800 BC Egyptian Execration Texts. 437
According to Frymer-Kensky, 438 the Akkadian form of Adad's name is Hadad, probably relat-
ed to the Arabic haddat, meaning noise, thunder. He was known as Hadad among the Ara-
maeans and Amorites, as Adad by the Mesopotamians and as Haddu among the Canaanites.
He was worshipped as a warrior god, particularly by the Assyrians. Apart from one possible
exception – Hadad-rimmon439 in Zechariah 12:11 – the designation "Hadad" never appears in
the Hebrew Bible. A number of kings from the Syrian area had the name Ben-Hadad. Ven-
eration of Hadad continued into the Hellenistic era, and even later – when Zeus was in reality
Hadad.440
429
Guirand 1996:60-61. Shala was first worshipped by the Sumerians, then taken into the Chaldean pantheon
and into the religion of the Babylonians where she became the consort of Adad. As Canaanite storm goddess she
was often depicted carrying a sheaf of corn. She was also known as Shalash (Ann & Imel 1993:347). The con-
sort of Adad was perceived as the bringer of rain (Van Loon 1990:364).
430
See footnote in § 3.3 on Atra-Hasīs, and discussion in § 3.9 on the Gilgamesh Epic.
431
See relevant footnote in § 2.4 on Shamash, and discussion in § 3.6.
432
Divination: foretelling the future by performing symbolic or magic acts, for example by scrutinising the liver
of a newly slaughtered animal (Deist 1990:74). See also relevant footnote on "divination" in § 2.4.
433
See relevant footnotes on Marduk in § 2.14.6 and in § 3.1.
434
Adad functioned as a 'god of oracles and judgement' (Greenfield 1999:378).
435
See relevant footnote on Dagan in § 2.3.
436
Frymer-Kensky 1987:26.
437
Day 1992a:545. Egyptian Execration Texts: Egyptian curse texts.
438
Frymer-Kensky 1987:26.
439
Hadad-rimmon refers to the Semitic storm god. Zechariah 12:11 states that 'the mourning in Jerusalem will
be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo'. "Rimmon" is an epithet of Hadad and is
identical to the Hebrew word for pomegranate. Scholars suggest that Hadad-rimmon could be the name of a
town or village on the plain of Megiddo, named after the deity, or that Zechariah refers to the mourning rites for
this deity Hadad-rimmon (Maier 1992c:13).
440
Maier 1992b:11. Zeus was the supreme deity on Olympus in Greece (Willis 1993:132).
146
The logogram dIM441 for the Sumerian god Ishkur was applied when writing the name Adad
and versions thereof, such as Haddu/Ba‛lu, Hurrian Teshup and Hittite Tarhunza. The name
Hadda – written dà-da – appears in Eblaite god-lists442 and is also known as a theophoric443
element in personal names. In the course of the Mesopotamian history, during the Old Baby-
lonian Period, the names of dà-da and the solar goddess dUTU appear together as guarantors
in treaties. Adad/Hadad of Aleppo was later assimilated into the Mesopotamian pantheon and
appeared with the sibitti – the Pleiades444 – among witnesses to treaties. The main sanctuary
of Hadad was in Aleppo. Neither the Akkadian texts, nor later Aramaic inscriptions, afford
an advanced mythology of Hadad. Ugaritic mythological and epic texts provide information
on his role in the West Semitic pantheon. 445
The storm god has a distinctive iconography. In the Akkadian period he was portrayed with a
thunderbolt and mace on the back of a lion-dragon. Cylinder seals from the Old Babylonian
Period depict him standing on the back of a bull, with a mace or another weapon in his right
hand and some form of thunder in the left hand. He wears a conical headdress and is bearded.
Ugaritic Ba‛lu – Ba‛al is represented with a thunderbolt, a spear touching the ground with
streaks of lightning at its other end, a slightly curved dagger in his belt, wielding a mace in his
right hand, bearded, and wearing a horned headdress. 446 The token of Ba‛al was an upright
stone pillar – hbcm – probably a phallic symbol. 447 The root qrb is common to Semitic lan-
guages – referring to the phenomenon of "lightning" – and occurs in the onomastics448 of sev-
eral Semitic languages. 449 Although never portrayed independently of the storm god, it is at-
tested that lightning was deified in Mesopotamia. Lightning was also associated with the
storm god as his symbol, and functioned as a weapon of Yahweh in his portrayal as Storm
God or Warrior God. Poetic texts in the Hebrew Bible refer to Yahweh's "arrows", and the
441
See footnote on Akkadian determinative in § 3.2.1.
442
See § 2.3 on Ebla.
443
See theophoric name in footnote on "hypocoristicon" in § 2.3.
444
Pleiades: in Greek mythology the seven daughters of Atlas turned into a constellation on their deaths. The
Pleiades is a conspicuous constellation or cluster of stars in Taurus (Oxford University Press 1964b:677). Atlas
was one of the Greek legendary titans [a large person with great strength] who were punished for revolting
against the Greek god Zeus; as punishment he had to support the heavens with his head and hands (Oxford Uni-
versity Press 1964a:64). Taurus is the bull constellation of the zodiac, including the Pleiades and Hyades (Ox-
ford University Press 1964b:904).
445
Greenfield 1999:378.
446
Greenfield 1999:379. The headdress is a conical crown with two horns projecting from the front (Fulco
1987c:32). Three pairs of third millennium BC bronze figurines were excavated in the Plain of Antioch. The
male figures carry maces and spears – weapons appropriate for gods of lightning and thunder (Van Loon
1990:364). See footnotes in § 2.3, § 2.14.1 and § 2.14.3 on "horns".
447
McKenzie 1966:72.
448
Onomastics: the study of the history and origin of names, especially names of people (Wehmeier 2005:1020).
449
The root qrb appears in proper names in Ugaritic, Amorite, Phoenician, Punic, Palmyrene, Old South Arabic
and Akkadian (Barré 1999:519).
147
lightning-bolt is called a "spear".450 Lightning is associated with the theophany451 of Yahweh,
often in combination with thunder, cloud and an earthquake. 452 Kuenen453 states that the
Book of Amos contains numerous utterances mentioning light and fire as symbols of Yahweh
and evidence of his presence. In addition thereto, Miller 454 indicates that fire was significant
in the mythology of the Ancient Near East – particularly in that of Syria-Palestine. Fire was
used against the enemies of the gods and became a significant element in the historical tradi-
tions, particularly in holy wars. According to Ancient Near Eastern tradition, the storm god
was the executive deity who delegated power to the king. 455
Albertz456 mentions that in the symbolism of the Ancient Near East 'the bull had long taken on
religious connotations … the storm god Adad was depicted as a "horned wild bull" or "great
wild bull of heaven and earth".' A number of portrayals show him standing on the back of a
bull.457 Common terracotta plaques have been excavated representing the storm god standing
on a bull, which may be an indication of 'the increasing popularity of the theme in the Old
Babylonian period'. 458 Since time immemorial the sound of thunder has been compared with
that of a bull's roaring and stamping, and the bull has thus been associated with rain. 459 In the
Ugaritic texts Ba‛al was at times represented as a bull, although the title "bull" was actually
reserved for the god El.460 Identifying the deity which is shown in combination with a bull is
complicated by the fact that similar features are occasionally shared by the storm and the
moon gods. Apart from sharing the image of the bull, both deities are associated with fertility
and regeneration. It is often difficult to determine whether the storm god is represented with
lunar features, or vice versa. 'The interchanging of divine attributes between different deities
… does not contradict ANE religious concepts, as the polytheistic theology conceived the
world as being simultaneously governed by several divine entities.' 461 The possible fusion of
different divine images into one icon can be perceived in first millennium religious history462
450
Habakkuk 3:11.
451
Theophany is the manifestation or appearance of God/a god to human beings (Deist 1990:259).
452
Barré 1999:519.
453
Kuenen 1882a:44-45. Examples of relevant texts in Amos are 1:4, 9-10, 14; 2:5; 5:6.
454
Miller 2000a:18-23.
455
Mendenhall 1973:223.
456
Albertz 1994:144.
457
Albertz 1994:144.
458
Ornan 2001b:15.
459
Van Loon 1990:364.
460
Albertz 1994:144.
461
Ornan 2001b:24-25.
462
Ornan 2001b:25. A basalt statue of a storm god mounted on a bull has been found at Hazor. On the assump-
tion that a combination of emblems – representing different deities – is embodied in a supreme god, scholars
have suggested that this statue could be a representation of El, head of the Canaanite pantheon. In the Ugaritic
literature he is referred to as "bull El" (Ornan 2001b:17).
148
– particularly in respect of the Israelite religion. According to the nineteenth century Dutch
scholar Kuenen,463 Yahweh was venerated in the form of a young bull; therefore, priests and
other devotees of the golden calves accepted that they were worshipping Yahweh.
Adad was known as the Canaanite Ba‛al, or Ba‛al Hadad.464 The word ba‛lu is a Semitic
noun meaning "lord", "owner". As an appellative, bēlum, it was applied as an epithet for var-
ious deities in early Mesopotamia, probably in a genitive construction. 465 Characteristics of a
storm god were repeatedly linked to Ba‛al, who was undoubtedly the national god in Ugarit,
although El, the father of the gods, was head of the pantheon. The late acceptance of Ba‛al in
the Ugaritic pantheon could be ascribed to tension between Ba‛al and El, which is often re-
ferred to in the Ugaritic texts. The consort of Ba‛al was always associated with fertility and
love. 466 The goddess Anat is indicated in the Ugaritic texts as Ba‛al's principle consort. His
dwelling was on Mount Zaphon467 – called hazzi by the Hittites. Ba‛al has a number of epi-
thets in the Ugaritic texts. Those occurring frequently are: "the victor Ba‛al", "rider of the
clouds" and "the prince lord – Ba‛al – of the north". 468 According to two traditions, he was
alternatively the son of El and the son of Dagan. Consistent with the content of the Ba‛al
myths, Yam,469 Mot470 and Ba‛al were the three competing sons of El. In his battle with Yam,
Ba‛al eventually achieved victory over chaos, thereafter controlling the weather. 471 Smith472
mentions that biblical Ba‛al was regarded a Phoenician god, identified with either Ba‛al
Shamem473 or Melqart.474 Phoenician inscriptions at Byblos attest that Ba‛al Shamem
463
Kuenen 1882a:235. Golden calves were set up in sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Ki 12:25-32).
464
The name Haddu – that is, Hadad or Adad – for Ba‛al, was used only in sacred texts (De Moor 1977:187).
465
The genitive indicates the domain or the object controlled, for example, bēl-harrān means "lord of Harrān",
referring to the moon god Sîn (De Moor 1977:182-183). Sîn resided in Harran (Stol 1999:782).
466
De Moor 1977:186-187.
467
Mount Zaphon is located approximately 40 km north of Ugarit at Jebel el-Aqra‛ in the northern region of Ca-
naan; it is the highest mountain in Syria, 1759 m above sea level. The Hebrew word for "north" – !wpc ( )
– is probably derived from the name of the mountain (Day 1992a:545). De Moor (1997:147) mentions that –
according to Job 26:7 and Psalm 89:12 – God appears to be the creator of Zaphon. Job 37:22 likewise states that
the gold covering God with splendour originates from the Zaphon.
468
Day 1992a:545. See § 3.3 for a discussion of Anat.
469
Yam represented the "sea" and the unruly forces of chaos; he was the equivalent of the Mesopotamian Tiamat
– see footnote in § 2.14.6 on Marduk, Apsu and Tiamat. With the aid of magical weapons, Ba‛al fought and
killed Yam. Ba‛al proclaimed himself king (Willis 1993:65). For a detailed discussion of the Ba‛al myths and
Ba‛al cycle (seasonal cycle affecting the fertility of the land) see Day (1992a:545-547).
470
Mot was god of death and a primeval earth monster. He attempted to usurp Ba‛al's kingship, but was killed
by Anat (see § 3.3 on Anat). This episode is a follow-up on the previous Ba‛al myths concerning Yam. See Wil-
lis (1993:65) for details.
471
Fulco 1987c:31.
472
Smith 1990:42-43.
473
~ymX l[b (Ba‛al Shamem) refers to the heaven(s) or sky (Holladay 1971:375).
474
The name Melqart means "King of the City". He appears as the god of the first millennium BC Tyre. Some
scholars identify Melqart as the Ba‛al worshipped on Mount Carmel and mocked by Elijah (1 Ki 18:20-40). On
a ninth to eighth century BC stele – dedicated to the king of Aram – Melqart has the emblem of a warrior god
(Ribichini 1999:563). Olyan (1988:62-63) argues that Ba‛al Shamem appears to be the Ba‛al of Carmel. A
149
manifested meteorologically. 475 He had power over the storm and could bring about "evil
wind".
The concept of a "god of heaven" was developed during the first millennium BC in the North-
West Semitic religions. Ba‛al Shamem – ~ymX l[b – emerged as a 'new type of supreme
476
god'. He is mentioned for the first time in mid-tenth century BC Phoenician inscriptions.
The epithet "God of Heaven" was later equated with Yahweh in the Judaeo-Israelite religion.
Yahweh was originally a local weather god – responsible for rain and fertility – in the Midian-
ite-Edomite region, and later venerated as such in the Judaeo-Israelite religion.477 With the
rise of the Monarchy Yahweh became supreme and universal weather God, a position reserved
for the "God of Heaven". Phoenician influence on the Israelite Monarchy is furthermore visi-
ble in, inter alia, the Temple of Jerusalem which was built under Phoenician direction. 478 'A
direct link between Yahweh and Baal shamem was established when the Omrides organized
their kingdom in conformity with the Phoenician organization.' 479 Yahweh was surrounded by
a "host of heaven" and celestial powers were ascribed to him, thereby confirming his status as
"God of Heaven". Fifth century BC Jewish inhabitants of Elephantine 480 spoke of Yahweh as
"Yahu, God of heaven".481
The entire area inhabited by Canaanites was dedicated to the worship of Ba‛al. The cult of
Ba‛al, along with other Canaanite gods, was adopted by the Egyptians during the time of the
Middle Kingdom.482 The various Syro-Palestinian population groups each had their own
Ba‛al – as indicated in literary documents – a deity who was 'of fundamental significance for
the human existence'.483 In the various texts Ba‛al appears mostly in association with the oth-
er gods.484 Myths concerning Ba‛al are found in the Ugaritic, Hittite and Egyptian
second century BC inscription from Carmel was found on a statue of Zeus Heliopolis linking Ba‛al to the god of
Carmel. In agreement with the Nabatean Zeus Helios – identified with Ba‛al Shamem – Zeus Heliopolis has
both storm and solar attributes. Olyan (1988:63) points out that according to Sanchuniathon, the storm god was
'the king par excellence'. During the sixth century BC Sanchuniathon wrote a history of Phoenicia which has
been partially preserved – via Philo of Byblos – in Eusebius's Praeparatio evangelica (Fulco 1987d:73-74).
Eusebius (ca 260-339) was bishop of Caesarea and the first major historian of the church (Lyman 1990:325).
475
This power is mentioned in a curse treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal II, king of Tyre (Smith 1990:43).
Esarhaddon was king of Assyria (681-669 BC) (Grayson 1992a:574).
476
Niehr 1999a:370.
477
Examples in the Hebrew Bible are: 2 Samuel 22:9-16 identical to Psalm 18:8-15; Psalm 29; Psalm 65:9-13;
Jeremiah 10:13 identical to Jeremiah 51:16; Jeremiah 14:22 and 31:12; Joel 2:22-24; Haggai 1:10-11.
478
1 Kings 5:1-18; 7:13-45.
479
Niehr 1999a:370.
480
See discussion of the Jewish colonists on Elephantine in § 2.14.5.
481
Niehr 1999a:370-371.
482
2040-1782 BC (Clayton 1994:68).
483
Herrmann 1999a:133.
484
For a discussion of various inscriptions referring to Ba‛al, see Herrmann (1999a:134-135).
150
traditions. The most comprehensive mythological series from Ugarit incorporates six tablets
written by a person named Ilimilku. Ugarit also furnishes the largest amount of cultic materi-
al. 485
Although Yahweh was the God acting predominantly in the sphere of history, 'Ba‛al held a
unique position among the inhabitants of Palestine'.486 The pattern of the seasons and the reg-
ular return of fertility were experienced as an indication of Ba‛al's power.487 As a divine
name, Ba‛al appears seventy-six times in the Hebrew Bible. Authors and redactors of the
Masoretic Text generally show a basic aversion to idols. It was not their intention to reveal in
detail the character or peculiarities of the Canaanite religion. 'They were inclined to speak of
Baal and his worship in pejorative terms.'488 There are indications in the Masoretic Text that
Baal-berith was the god of Shechem. 489 It is not clear whether El-berith490 has to be identi-
fied with Baal-berith or whether there were two gods, each with his own temple, at Shechem.
Likewise, Baal-zebub is mentioned as the god of the Philistine city Ekron. 491 Baal-peor492
was venerated on the mountain Peor in Moab and his cult was characterised by 'sacral prosti-
tution and by eating a sacrificial meal, by means of which an intimate relationship was estab-
lished between the god and his worshippers'. 493 A conflict was prevalent between Yahweh
and Ba‛al even before the Israelite settlement in Canaan. 494 Later an even greater encounter
took place under the Omrides.495 Mulder496 furnishes a detailed exposition of Ba‛al worship
in Israel as depicted in the Masoretic Text. Rituals and customs of the Ba‛al religion were
condemned by the prophets. The Israelites and Judeans were forbidden to take part in any
facet of this religion. 497 On account of the similarity between Yahweh and Ba‛al 'many of the
traits ascribed to Yahweh inform us on the character of the Palestinian Baal'. 498 According to
Herrmann,499 Yahweh's sphere of influence in the Israelite religion 'gradually widened to
485
De Moor 1977: 189-190. For a discussion of cultic and mythological material, see De Moor (1977:189-192).
486
Herrmann 1999a:138.
487
Herrmann 1999a:138.
488
Mulder 1977:193. As an example: ba‛al was transformed into tXb (boshet), "shame", in Isaiah 42:17. For a
discussion of the various occurrences of Ba‛al and related forms in the Hebrew Bible, see Mulder (1977:193-
194).
489
Judges 8:33; 9:3-4.
490
Judges 9:46.
491
2 Kings 1:2, 6, 16.
492
Numbers 25:3, 5; Deuteronomy 4:3; Psalm 106:28; Hosea 9:10.
493
Mulder 1977:194.
494
Numbers 25:1-5.
495
1 Kings 16:31-33; 18:17-40.
496
Mulder 1977:195-198.
497
Mulder 1977:200.
498
Herrmann 1999a:138. See § 3.8 regarding attributes ascribed to Yahweh and El/Elohim.
499
Herrmann 1999a:138.
151
eventually include what had once been the domain of Baal as well'. This 'rise in importance
was only possible, in fact, through the incorporation of traits that had formerly been character-
istic of Baal only.' Notwithstanding the absorption of Ba‛al traits by Yahweh – as pointed out
by Herrmann500 – all indications are that the Judeans carried on with syncretistic religious
practices, probably worshipping Yahweh alongside Ba‛al.501
Smith502 mentions that some of the older Israelite poems 'juxtapose imagery associated with
El and Baal in the Ugaritic texts and apply this juxtaposition of attributes to Yahweh'. 503 De-
scriptions in various North-West Semitic texts accentuate Ba‛al's theophany in the storm, or
his character as a warrior. These two dimensions are explicitly linked in some iconography.
Biblical material, however, attributes Yahweh with power over the storm, 504 and presents
Yahweh as the Divine Warrior.505 Budde506 indicates that 'Yahweh wields the most terrible of
weapons, the lightning'. He appears in the storm,507 he rides on the storm, 508 and he reveals
himself in the storm, 509 in fire, smoke and cloud.510 His dwelling is on Mount Sinai where
storms gather around the peaks of the mountain. 511 According to Fretheim, 512 the appearance
of a divinity in fire is unique. Miller, 513 however, denotes that 'the motif of the gods using fire
against their enemies appears to have been more widespread than is sometimes recognized'.
Some scholars interpret Amos 7:4 as Yahweh's conflict with the primordial monster, with his
weapon "lightning or supernatural fire". The combination "winds" and "fire" is not uncom-
mon in the Ancient Near Eastern mythology – specifically in cosmic conflicts – and appears
to be a kind of weapon.514 In addition hereto, Kuenen515 mentions that light and fire are signs
of Yahweh's presence and an unmistakable indication of the inaccessibility of the "Holy One
500
Herrmann 1999a:138.
501
The various attributes of Yahweh – of which some were evidently taken over from Ba‛al – are discussed in
§ 3.8.
502
Smith 1990:21, 49.
503
Examples of language derived from El, Ba‛al and Asherah are exhibited in Genesis 49:25-26; Deuteronomy
33:26-27; 2 Samuel 22:13-16 (Smith 1990:21).
504
Yahweh presented as the Storm God is elucidated in, inter alia, 1 Samuel 12:18; Psalm 29; Jeremiah 10:11-16;
14:22; Amos 4:7; 5:8; 9:6. See § 3.8 for attributes ascribed to Yahweh.
505
A number of texts that exhibit Divine Warrior traits are Psalms 50:1-3; 97:1-6; 104:1-4; Habakkuk 3:8-15.
See § 3.8 for attributes ascribed to Yahweh.
506
Budde 1899:27-28.
507
Exodus 19:9, 16-19.
508
Judges 5:4-5; Psalm 68:4, 7-8, 33; Habakkuk 3:8.
509
1 Kings 19:11-13.
510
Exodus 3:2-3.
511
Budde 1899:28.
512
Fretheim 1991:55. Examples in the Masoretic Text of such an appearance are in Genesis 15:17 and in Exo-
dus 3:2-4.
513
Miller 2000a:18.
514
Miller 2000a:18, 21.
515
Kuenen 1882a:44-45.
152
of Israel". Houtman516 suggests that the theophany of Yahweh on Mount Sinai could indicate
a volcanic eruption,517 although it is unlikely that people would reside in the vicinity of an ac-
tive volcano.518
The Akkadian word ūmu, day – which corresponds to the Hebrew ~wy, "day" – has an addi-
tional meaning, "storm" – and often appears in divine designations. The Akkadian ūmu,
storm, was frequently used with theophanic 519 connotations. Therefore, in the light of the
Akkadian ūmu,520 Niehaus521 interprets Genesis 3:8 'in the wind of the storm' and not 'in the
cool of the day'. Yahweh advances in the theophany of the storm wind. Niehaus 522 indicates
that if his interpretation is correct, it affects other terms in this Genesis text: it will not be the
voice of Yahweh the man and woman heard, but the 'thunder of his stormy presence'.
According to Obermann,523 the designation "Rider-of-the-Clouds" was applied to Ba‛al long

before it became an appellative of Yahweh. The epithet rkb ‛rpt refers to Ba‛al driving his
"chariot of clouds", also probably meaning "Rider-upon-the-Clouds". When driving in his
chariot, Ba‛al goes out to distribute rain, but at the same time it sets Ba‛al in the position of a
warrior god. In Habakkuk 3:8 Yahweh is said to drive a horse-drawn chariot.524 Miller525
suggests that 'the clouds are the war chariot of the storm god as he goes to do battle'. The
word aliyan – translated as "victorious", "almighty" – is often used in the Ba‛al mythology,
followed by other epithets, such as "Rider-upon-the-Clouds". Aliyan never occurs as an inde-
pendent divine name.526 A West Semitic term hurpatum appears in a text from Mari. This
term seems to be indirectly related to both the Hebrew and Ugaritic words for "cloud", insofar
as it appears in descriptions of a storm god's presence. 527 In most Semitic languages the root
rkb – "to mount (upon)" – is applied mainly for chariot driving, and not for riding on an
516
Houtman 1993:119.
517
Exodus 19:18. See also Habakkuk 3:6.
518
See a previous reference in this paragraph to the theophany of Yahweh, combined with thunder, cloud, and
earthquakes.
519
See footnote on "theophany" earlier in this paragraph (§ 3.5).
520
According to Niehaus (1994:264), the Akkadian ūmu (storm) has a Hebrew cognate in a second description
of ~wy, as "storm". See also Holladay (1971:131) for ~wy, interpreted as "storm", "wind", "breath".
521
Niehaus 1994:264.
522
Niehaus 1994:264.
523
Obermann 1949:319. See Psalm 68:33.
524
Herrmann 1999c:704.
525
Miller 1973:41.
526
Dijkstra 1999:18-19.
527
See also footnote in § 2.14.1, as well as the discussion by Fleming (2000:484-498) of Mari's large public tent
and priestly tent sanctuary. According to Exodus 19:16, Yahweh appeared in 'thunders and lightnings and a thick
cloud [!n[] on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast'. Holladay (1971:278) indicates ~ynn[ as rain clouds
(Jr 4:13) and !n[ as clouds or a mass of clouds (Gn 9:13).
153
animal. Similarly, the divine name Rakib-Il528 and epithets such as "Rider-upon-the-Clouds"
relate to a chariot-driving warrior and not to the imagery of a riding horseman. However, late
third millennium BC – and later, particularly during the eighth to seventh century BC – figu-
rines of riding horsemen have been found in Palestine. These figurines usually functioned in
domestic and funerary contexts, venerated on the level of family religion. This may be an in-
dication that these figurines depicted a divine protector.529 A statue found in Ammon – dated
seventh to sixth century BC – bears the inscription "Yarachazar, chief of the horse", probably
indicating this person's function as chief of the cavalry. 530
Prinsloo531 indicates that, while many scholars are of the opinion 'that Habakkuk 3 has its lit-
erary parallel in the Canaanite epic literature', other scholars seriously doubt such a sugges-
tion. Nevertheless, exegetes generally acknowledge an Ancient Near Eastern background of
Habakkuk 3 'without over-emphasising the Mesopotamian or Canaanite background'. 532 To a
large extent, consensus has been reached amongst scholars that Habakkuk 3:3-15 is an archaic
theophany, resembling other theophanies in the Hebrew Bible. 533 Habakkuk 3:3-7 describes
Yahweh's triumphant march from the "South"534 distinctly portraying him as a heavenly war-
rior. Although storm god motifs – clouds, winds, lightning and storm – are absent in Habak-
kuk 3:3-7 and Deuteronomy 33:2, they do appear in the archaic theophanies of Judges 5:4 and
Psalm 68:8-10. A blinding light associated with the appearance of Yahweh clearly depicts
Yahweh as a solar deity. 535 Habakkuk 3 gives a description of a theophany with accompany-
ing natural phenomena. The "Lord of Light" is described as a Divine Warrior; the plague –
rbd – went before him and pestilence – @Xr – followed on his heels. 536 Although Ugaritic
ritual texts indicate that Resheph – @Xr – who has been linked to war, the underworld and
metalworking, was worshipped in Ugarit, there is 'too little material to draw any final conclu-
sions'.537
528
Rakib-Il / Rakib-El: see also description in § 3.6.
529
Uehlinger 1999:705-706.
530
Landes 1962b:113.
531
Prinsloo 2001:484.
532
Prinsloo 2001:485.
533
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4-5; Psalm 68:7-8.
534
South-eastern regions of Canaan: Sinai, Mount Paran, Seir, Teman.
535
Prinsloo 2001:478-479.
536
Habakkuk 3:5 (ESV: Hab 3:4). The plague – rbd – mentioned in Habakkuk, is indicated by Holladay
(1971:68) as bubonic plague. Compare 1 Kings 8:37; Jeremiah 14:12. rbd was the master of epidemics (Ex
9:3; Jr 21:6). @Xr and rbd could be seen as two 'personalized natural powers, submitted to Yahweh' (Xella
1999:703).
537
Handy 1994:109-110.
154
Qôs was the national deity of the Edomites and is attested in the names of their kings, Qaus-
malak. His official status is indicated on the H ostracon in some Edomite adminis-
trative correspondence from the first half of the sixth century BC. Archaeological findings at
a seventh to sixth century BC building complex excavated at ,538 have been in-
terpreted as an Edomite sanctuary where Qôs and an unnamed female consort were wor-
shipped. Although the majority of references to Qôs is Idumaean,539 his name appears in
Egyptian listings of names which were possibly those of Shasu clans from the thirteenth cen-
tury BC.540 As indicated in previous paragraphs, 541 the Shasu clans were connected to Edom
and Seir. At the same time Egyptian records point to a possible link between these clans and
'Yhw in the land of the Shasu'. 542 The southern part of Edom later developed into the Nabate-
an cultic centre of Petra. Dū-Šarā – "The One of the Sharā-Mountains" – was the Nabatean
national deity and probably corresponded to the deity Qôs.
The Arabic word qaus – "bow" – which is the deified weapon of the storm god or warrior
god, is the etymon of Qôs. Qôs is also presented as "Lord of the Animals". 543 Knauf544 indi-
cates that 'his area of origin and his nature as an aspect of the Syrian weathergod present Qôs
as closely related to Yahweh', and he furthermore poses the question, 'could the two have
originally been identical?' According to Bartlett,545 Qôs-names are typical Semitic theophoric
names of which the element qws thus represents the name of a deity. The nature of this god is
portrayed – to some extent – in these theophoric names, for example, qwsgbr "Qôs is power-
ful", qwsmlk "Qôs is king" and qwsnhr "Qôs is light". He is represented at a Nabatean shrine
on a throne flanked by bulls with a thunderbolt – the symbol of the lord of rain – in his left
hand. It therefore seems that he was undoubtedly a storm god. Some scholars argue that the
Edomites procured knowledge of Qôs from their early Arab neighbours.
Miller 546 is of the opinion that the Divine Warrior is 'one of the major images of God' in the
Hebrew Bible. In the religious and military experience of Israel, the perception of God as
warrior was of paramount importance. Ancient Near Eastern deities fought wars to maintain
538
is approximately 10 km south of Arad (Knauf 1999a:675). See § 2.14.2 for more information
on Arad.
539
Idumaea was not an organised distinct administrative district before the early fourth century BC (Knauf
1999a:675).
540
Knauf 1999a:674-675.
541
See § 2.4, § 2.5 and § 2.6 for more information on the Shasu.
542
See § 4.3.4.
543
Knauf 1999a:676-677.
544
Knauf 1999a:677.
545
Bartlett 1989:200-204.
546
Miller 1973:1, 64-65, 74.
155
or reinforce their positions in the divine pantheons, and to secure order in the universe. 547
Therefore, Israel's belief was that their wars were in fact "the wars of Yahweh". As 'com-
mander of the armies of heaven and earth he fought for Israel'. 548 Literary material from the
Hebrew Bible – which could be reasonably dated – provides "valuable historical control".
Early Israelite poetry contains the earliest literary remains of its history. The final blessing of
Moses in Deuteronomy incorporates the vision of Yahweh the Warrior.549 The victory "Song
of Deborah"550 – dated late twelfth or early eleventh century BC – basically concentrates on
the 'victory of Yahweh and his armies over the enemies of Israel'. 551 Psalm 68 contains war
songs and war poetry celebrating the victory of Yahweh.552 In the psalm he is portrayed with
his "heavenly chariotry and entourage" – 'thousands upon thousands'.553 The glorious deeds
of Yahweh, the Warrior, are vividly described in the "Song of Moses", the "Song of the
Sea".554 Habakkuk 3555 emphasises the mythological conflict between Yahweh and the chaos
forces of the sea and death. The theophany of Yahweh correlates with that described in Deu-
teronomy 33, Judges 5 and Psalm 68, while a parallel to Canaanite and Mesopotamian my-
thology can be recognised. 556 Besides the above-mentioned poetic material, the image of
Yahweh is portrayed as warrior in Joshua 10, 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18.557 In conclusion,
547
'In this interrelation of the cosmic and the historical, such fundamental matters as kingship, salvation, crea-
tion, and the building of temples were related to and depended upon the military activities of the gods and their
armies' (Miller 1973:64).
548
Miller 1973:64.
549
Deuteronomy 33:2-5, 26-29. The structure of the poem consists of a theophany of Yahweh and his heavenly
army (Dt 33:2-3), the establishment of kingship (Dt 33:4-5) and Israel's settlement in the land (Dt 33:26-29)
(Miller 1973:75).
550
Judges 5.
551
Miller 1973:87. Judges 5:2 could be an allusion to the Nazirites and therefore the earliest reference to their
custom and law. Samson (Jdg 13-16), was linked to the Nazirite vow. His strength and ability as warrior could
indicate that the Nazirites were a type of "holy warriors" (Miller 1973:88-89).
552
There are indications that at least parts of the psalm are placed in a cultic context; Yahweh's battle is against
cosmic enemies (Miller 1973:103-104, 111).
553
Mullen 1980:192-193. See Psalm 68:17.
554
Exodus 15. Yahweh's deliverance of his people is recounted, but in a different type of theophany. This song
'preserves a familiar mythic pattern: the combat of the divine warrior and his victory at the Sea' (Miller
1973:113, 117).
555
Habakkuk 3:3-15.
556
Miller 1973:118-119. Habakkuk 3:5 exhibits the closest parallel to Marduk's march with his servants (see
relevant footnote incorporating Marduk, § 2.14.6); the servants at times being the gods of plague and pestilence
(Miller 1973:119). Resheph was long known as deity of disease and pestilence. Egyptian inscriptions, however,
attest that he was venerated as warrior god in Egypt (Handy 1994:109). Resheph was adopted at the court of
pharaoh Amenophis II [1453-1419 BC] and was regarded as a special protector during military operations. He is
also attested at third millennium BC Ebla and may have been related to the royal necropolis as a chthonic god
(see footnotes in § 3.2.1 and § 3.2.4 referring to chthonic). Habakkuk 3:5 describes that Resheph followed on
God's heels (Xella 1999:701, 703).
557
Joshua 10:12-13; 2 Samuel 22:7-18; Psalm 18:7-18 (Miller 1973:121-123). For a detailed discussion of the
afore-mentioned literary material, portraying Yahweh as Divine Warrior, see Miller (1973:74-128). Armies of
Yahweh in later traditions are also discussed in Miller (1973:128-165).
156
Miller 558 observes that from an early period Israel conceived the idea of Yahweh being a Di-
vine Warrior – a perception which, depicted in apposite language, dominated Israel's faith.
Cross559 agrees with Miller that the Hebrew Bible portrays Yahweh as Divine Warrior. He
discusses Psalm 24 as depiction of Yahweh as the Warrior-King. He notes that 'the language
of holy war and its symbolism may be said to be the clue to an adequate interpretation of
Psalm 24 and its place in the cultic history of Israel'. 560 Epithets such as ĕbā’ōt, 'stem
from the old ideology of the league, from the Songs of the Wars of Yahweh'. 561 As early as
the pre-monarchical period, the concept of Yahweh as warrior was possibly linked to the idea
of Yahweh as king. His dwelling was on Zion, which symbolised security. This security was
'rooted in Yahweh's presence there as king and in his power as creator and defender'.562
Lang563 mentions that the ancient world often represented the king as the deity's human war
leader. Both Yahweh and the Sumerian god Ningirsu564 represented a common type of deity
in the ancient world – the tutelary deity of the state. In this capacity they shared the same re-
sponsibility – 'to secure royal victory in battle';565 the national god was therefore also the war-
rior god. This ideology was dominant in Iron Age Israel and its neighbours. Mesopotamian
images and texts typify the divine warrior's participation in human warfare. Biblical tradi-
tions narrating the Hebrew conquest of Palestine closely resemble these depictions. 566
Battles between Ancient Near Eastern nations were deduced as battles between patron gods,
leading to the ideology of a "holy war". This concept was shared by Israel 567 and therefore
Yahweh's attribute as warrior was identified with his name. 568 The practice of extermination
in tribal feuds also contributed to the idea of a holy war. 569 Celestial beings that formed Yah-
weh's entourage and fought his battles signified the "hosts", in the title "Lord of Hosts".570
558
Miller 1973:171.
559
Cross 1973:91-111.
560
Cross 1973:99.
561
Cross 1973:99.
562
Ollenburger 1987:56, 72-73.
563
Lang 2002:47.
564
Ningirsu, son of Enlil (see footnote in § 2.3) and patron of Lagash – prominent Sumerian city – had his tem-
ple in this city. He was concerned with irrigation which brought about fertility, but was also known as warrior
god. His attribute was a club, flanked by two S-shaped snakes (Guirand 1996:60).
565
Lang 2002:49.
566
Lang 2002:49-50. See Lang (2002:50-52) for a comparison between the Mesopotamian depictions and Josh-
ua's conquest of Jericho, as described in the Hebrew Bible.
567
Judges 11:23-24; 2 Kings 18:33-35.
568
Glatt-Gilad 2002:64. Exodus 15:3.
569
Gerstenberger 2002:156.
570
Joshua 5:13-15; Judges 5:20.
157
The interplay between God's identity and his reputation – two aspects of his name – is illus-
trated in psalms concerning the Warrior God.571 'His military power goes hand in hand with
the enhancement or preservation of his reputation.'572 Appeals to this military power probably
had their origins in cultic liturgy linked to military events. A plea to God's honour was made
through "prophetic intercession". The expectation of the appellant was veiled in the percep-
tion that God was 'concerned about his honor in the eyes of the nations'. 573 Israel's exile
brings shame upon God's reputation. Concern for his reputation is explicitly expressed by
Deutero-Isaiah. 574 The close connection between God's exalted reputation and Israel's salva-
tion in battle is expressed in various liturgical texts in the Psalms. 575 Yahweh, as Divine War-
rior, fought for the tribes.576
Taking war very seriously, Israel undoubtedly had a pre-battle rite – or maybe a number of
pre-battle ceremonies. 577 It was common practice for a priest or prophet to determine before-
hand whether Yahweh approved the attack or not. Details of the different customs are, how-
ever, unknown.578 Psalm 18 designates Yahweh as a rock, fortress, shield, high tower
[stronghold] and 'the horn of my salvation'. 579 The "horn of my salvation" was not merely a
symbolic image but in fact actual horns – as those used by Zedekiah in the rite before the bat-
tle.580 These horns581 – as a liturgical device – allude to divine strength that brings about vic-
tory. The purpose of the rite is an attempt to facilitate the process for a sign from Yahweh,
thereby raising the morale of the warriors when convinced that a victory is in the making
which has been cultically inaugurated.582
In Ancient Near Eastern folklore the enthronement of a king included the ritual handing over
of a special weapon, which was perceived as the weapon of the warrior god. Many references
571
Psalms 44:5; 48:10; 72:1-3; 79:9-10.
572
Glatt-Gilad 2002:66.
573
Glatt-Gilad 2002:69.
574
Isaiah 48:11; 52:5.
575
Glatt-Gilad 2002:64-67, 69, 71-72, 74. See for example Psalms 44; 79:9-10.
576
Gerstenberger 2002:146.
577
Examples are: Moses holding up his staff for the massacre of Amalek (Ex 17:8-16); Joshua pointing his jave-
lin towards Ai (Jos 8:18-29); warriors are described as consecrated ones (Is 13:3).
578
Psalm 20, as an example, is clearly divided into two sections: the first is a prayer for the king before the bat-
tle, and the second a 'shout of assurance that victory is guaranteed' (Stacey 1982:471).
579
Psalm 18:2.
580
Zedekiah, a prophet who promised king Ahab [reigned in Israel 874/3-853 BC] victory in the battle against
the Aramaeans. The prophesying by four hundred cultic prophets took place on the threshing floor outside Sa-
maria. During the ecstatic activities of the prophets, Zedekiah placed the horns of iron on his head – symbolising
great power (compare Dt 33:17) and thus victory for the king (MacLean 1962b:947). See 1 Kings 22:1-28 and 2
Chronicles 18:1-27.
581
See relevant footnotes in § 2.3 and § 2.14.3 on the meaning and function of "horns".
582
Stacey 1982:471-473.
158
to this ritual are found in cuneiform literature. The temple of Adad583 in Mari584 probably
contained such weapons with which the deity fought Tiamat,585 the mythical dragon of the
sea. Some biblical texts illustrate the idea of a divine weapon. 586 Throughout the Ancient
Near East the myth of the divine warrior's successful battle against the chaos monsters was
well known. The Ugaritic "Ba‛al and Yam myth" recounts the conflict between the storm god
Ba‛al and the sea god Yam. Psalm 74 alludes to the Creator God's battle with the sea. In the
book of Job587 the antagonism between God, the sea, Rahab588 and the "Fleeing Serpent", is
pointed out.589 References to Rahab in the Hebrew Bible should be read against the back-
ground of the Ancient Near Eastern mythology describing the victory over the powers of cha-
os, which are represented as monsters. Texts in the Hebrew Bible relate to a concept of a bat-
tle between Yahweh and chaos, prior to creation. 590 'The chaos-battle mythology reveals
much of the worldview of the ancient warrior societies.' 591
'Within the separatist religious sect at Qumran, the image of God as a warrior is particularly
prominent in the War Scroll, where it assumes highly apocalyptic form.' 592 Members of the
sect were expected to participate in a divine battle against the forces of darkness. The War
Scroll describes this battle which will totally eradicate all evil. 593
Information gleaned from Ugaritic texts indicates that, while El was seemingly the 'father of
gods and the "executive" deity of the pantheon at Ugarit', 594 he had limited power which
gradually declined in the face of Ba‛al's increasing popularity. A line of tradition in Canaan-
ite mythology, however, portrays El to a certain extent as a warrior deity. It is unlikely that
he could have been a ruler of the gods without some manifestation of power. As warrior dei-
ties, the activities of Ba‛al and the goddess Anat595 were closely related. They were mainly in
583
See previous discussion in this paragraph and also footnote in § 2.3.
584
See § 2.4 for a discussion of Mari.
585
See footnote in § 2.14.6.
586
For example, Ezekiel 30:24: 'And I [Yahweh] will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon and put my
sword in his hand.'
587
Job 26:10-13.
588
Rahab, also known as Leviathan or Tannin, was one of the names in the Hebrew Bible for the chaos monster.
This name seems to have no cognates in neighbouring cultures, although there are many parallels to the phenom-
enon of chaos monsters. Job 9:13 refers to the helpers of Rahab (bhr) who bowed beneath hwla; in Psalm
89:10 hwla hwhy crushed Rahab, and according to Isaiah 51:9 hwhy 'cut Rahab in pieces' (Spronk 1999b:684).
589
Lang 2002:55-59.
590
Spronk 1999b:684-685.
591
Lang 2002:61.
592
Hiebert 1992:879.
593
Hiebert 1992:879.
594
Miller 1973:48.
595
See § 3.3 for a discussion of the Ugaritic goddess Anat.
159
the centre of a series of battles. The question arises whether the warrior attributes of Yahweh
developed independently, or under influence of the image of the Canaanite Ba‛al.596
The concept "host of heaven" originated from the metaphor of Yahweh as Warrior. In combat
Yahweh was assisted by warriors and an army. 597 In the Israelite religious history, the "host of
heaven" indicated the divine assembly gathered around the heavenly King, Yahweh.598 The
illustration of Yahweh seated on his throne with "all the host of heaven" gathered on his right
and left hand sides, is appropriated from terrestrial depictions. The idea of a divine council
underlies Isaiah 6 wherein Yahweh carries the title "Lord of Hosts".599 Texts in Deuterono-
my600 and Psalms601 exhibit an astral concept of the "host of heaven" and understood it as the
"sun, moon and stars". Israelites and Judeans alike were reproached for their veneration of
the "astralised host of heaven".602 Altars for the worship of the "host of heaven" in the Jerusa-
lem Temple were removed during Josiah's cult reform. 603 The exact meaning of the "host of
heaven" in post-exilic texts remains vague. 604
The question arises to what extent an incidence of contact existed between the "host of
heaven" and the "divine council"; whether any distinction can be made or whether it should
be deemed an interchangeable concept. Mullen605 indicates that 'the concept of the divine
council, or the assembly of the gods, was a common religious motif in the cultures of Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Canaan, Phoenicia and Israel'. 606 Even as late as in the post-biblical apocry-
pha, pseudepigrapha, and writings from Qumran, there are numerous allusions to the heavenly
council. It is difficult to determine the extent of the influence of the heavenly council in
Mesopotamia. The so-called "synod of the gods" in Egypt apparently played an insignificant
role in the Egyptian religion. Members of the divine council are designated in similar termi-
nology in Hebrew and Ugaritic literature. Handy607 suggests that a model for a bureaucracy
should be implemented to comprehend the behaviour of the Syro-Palestinian divine world,
596
Miller 1973:24, 50.
597
Joshua 5:13-15; 2 Kings 6:17; 7:6; Psalm 68:17; Isaiah 13:4-5; Joel 3:11; Habakkuk 3:8.
598
599
Isaiah 6:3, 5.
600
Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3.
601
For example: Psalm 148:2-3.
602
2 Kings 21:3, 5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13. Astral worship specifically forbidden in Israel implies knowledge of
such veneration (Saggs 1978:91).
603
2 Kings 21:5; 23:4-5.
604
Niehr 1999c:428-429.
605
Mullen 1980:113-114, 119.
606
See descriptions in Job 1-2; Daniel 7; Zechariah 3.
607
Handy 1994:10, 65, 79, 89.
160
although hierarchy could seldom be seen as "open-ended" at the upper level. 608 In the
Canaanite pantheon El and Asherah were acting as highest authority. El was designated with
wisdom, as well as being arbiter of justice. The actions of both divine and human beings
were subject to the justice of El. Psalm 82 condemns all members of the divine council to
death for abusing their offices. 609
The constitution and function of the divine assembly, as indicated in early Hebrew sources,
exhibit a similarity to the Canaanite and Phoenician divine councils. Major and minor deities
aided the high god in warfare. Although the Israelite religion prohibited the worship of other
gods than Yahweh, he was, nonetheless surrounded by divine beings. The prophet, as courier
of the council, was introduced as a new element into the Israelite traditions. There is, howev-
er, a remarkable similarity between the human prophet and the Ugaritic divine messenger.610
The council of Yahweh – the Israelite counterpart of the council of El – lies implicitly behind
the prophetic language applied in the revelation of the word of Yahweh.611 During the Exile
Hebrew traditions struggled with the problem of Good versus Evil. Demons were thus devel-
oped as divine powers in opposition to Yahweh.612 There are indications in some of the pro-
phetic oracles in the Hebrew Bible 'that the divine council participates as a cosmic or heaven-
ly army in the eschatological wars of Yahweh, those military activities associated with the
Day of Yahweh, and that these conflicts (or this conflict?) involved a joint participation of
human or earthly forces and divine or heavenly armies'. 613 A metaphor running right through
the Scripture – Old and New Testament – comprises the dominant reality of the combat of
Yahweh against opposing forces.614
The designation Yahweh Sebaoth – twabc hwhy – functioned prominently as a cultic name in
Shiloh and Jerusalem, and is attested from the pre-monarchical to post-exilic times. 615 This
epithet meaning "hosts of heaven", "armies", or similar depictions, is closely connected to the
608
In neither the modern nor ancient world does authority, in a given bureaucracy, need to rest in one person,
although, normally, there is a single highest authority (Handy 1994:65).
609
Psalm 82:1-2, 6-7 reads
'… God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How
long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked … You are gods, sons of the Most High,
all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince".'
The "divine council" is a reference to the "assembly of El" (Handy 1994:89).
610
Mullen 1980:278-279.
611
Cross 1973:186-187. See, for example, 1 Kings 22:19-28; Psalm 82; Isaiah 6:1-13; Jeremiah 23:16-18.
612
Mullen 1980:279.
613
Miller 2000a:397-398.
614
Miller 2000a:156, 410.
615
Mettinger 1999b:920.
161
idea of the "holy war".616 The designation can thus be translated as "Lord of Hosts", and
probably alludes to either the armies of Israel or heavenly hosts. 'The use of the Zebaoth des-
ignation in Hebrew can be traced back as far as pre-monarchic Shiloh.'617 There are indica-
tions of early cultic activity at Shiloh, from the Middle Bronze II period onwards. Therefore,
the temple at Shiloh618 should be understood against a Canaanite background. Although some
scholars attempt to trace Yahweh Sebaoth back to Canaanite Resheph619 – Resheph the soldier,
or Resheph the lord of the army – evidence points to El features in the deity worshipped at
Shiloh. In the Hebrew Bible the term is attested in those books which represent a tradition
linked to the theology promoted at the Jerusalem Temple.620 It thus seems that the designa-
tion "Sebaoth" was closely linked to Zion and the Temple, and 'that Yahweh Zebaoth was
conceived as enthroned in invisible majesty on the cherubim throne in the Solomonic Tem-
ple'. 621 A further aspect of the Zion-Sebaoth theology was the idea that the Temple was the
junction between heaven and earth; therefore Yahweh could be located simultaneously on
earth and in heaven. The designation Sebaoth also occurs in passages in which the divine
council plays a role. 622
Choi623 indicates 'that ĕbā’ôt, is an actual construct phrase, with the doubly determined
proper name yhwh, … strengthened by the nearly identical Ugaritic phrase ršp . This
deity ršp – Resheph – occurs in different inscriptions, from Egypt to Ugarit and Cyprus. The
image of the deity appears in Egyptian artwork, from Late Bronze to Iron I Ages, and as a
theophoric624 element in different personal names. 625 The Hebrew Bible presents Resheph as
a plague or a demon force, indicating that ršp – as b‛l – had a dual function as a proper name
or a common noun. 626 Choi627 discusses and illustrates various applications of Resheph, as it
occurs in Ancient Near Eastern and Phoenician inscriptions. He concludes that certain
phrases which incorporate Resheph do not refer to a regional manifestation of the deity, but
indicates a specific facet of the deity. This finding is significant to clarify the phrase
616
Deist 1990:223.
617
Mettinger 1999b: 920. 1 Samuel 1:3, 11; 4:4.
618
1 Samuel 1:9; 3:3.
619
A description of Resheph is incorporated in a footnote in § 3.2.1, and also in an earlier footnote in this para-
graph.
620
Psalms (fifteen times), Proto-Isaiah (fifty-six times), Haggai (fourteen times), Zechariah (fifty-three times)
and Malachi (twenty-four times) (Mettinger 1999b:921).
621
622
Mettinger 1999b:920-923.
623
Choi 2004:19.
624
See footnote in § 2.3.
625
Some of these names are attested in the Mari letters (see § 2.4 on the "Mari documents"), and other forms in
Ugaritic, Phoenician, Ammonite and the Hebrew Bible (Choi 2004:19-20).
626
Choi 2004:21.
627
Choi 2004:19-27. See these pages for the relevant discussion.
162
yhwh ĕbā’ôt. 'Evidence from the use of ršp in various regions (therefore) suggests that yhwh
ĕbā’ôt is a genuine construct chain, used to point out and highlight a specific aspect of the
deity's nature.' In this instance Yahweh's character as warrior and 'supreme commander of
armies' is accentuated. 628
Livingstone629 mentions that when the Assyrians became the might in the Ancient Near East,
Aššur – their national god – took the central place. To ease this substitution Aššur was identi-
fied with the Old Babylonian god Anšar.630 Aššur thus became "Lord of the gods" – he was
regarded as creator and ordained man's fate. Apart from these functions he was above all a
warrior god who accompanied the armies into battle. He was mostly represented as a winged
disc or mounted on a bull or floating through the air. As supreme divinity he also had the
quality of a fertility god, who was depicted by surrounding branches, and in this capacity had
a female goat as attribute. Ninlil was Aššur's principle consort.631 It is significant that Aššur,
as warrior god, was also portrayed with the attributes of the storm god (Adad) and of the solar
god (Shamash). It seems, therefore, that he was at the same time warrior, solar and storm
god. Cornelius and Venter632 indicate that he was an anthropomorphic633 deity regarded as
superhuman. A well-known illustration of Aššur shows him in a winged sun disc firing a
bow. The sun disc is actually the representation of a chariot travelling through the sky. Ni-
nurta – firstborn son of Aššur and god of warfare and hunting – was known as an outstanding
deity is Assyria. 634 Aššur's temple – bit Aššur – was the main centre of his cult in the city of
Assur. Assyrian prayers in their religious rituals indicate the deity's prominence in royal ide-
ology and epitomise his character as national god.635 The god Aššur was considered the
628
Choi 2004:27.
629
Livingstone 1999:108-109.
630
It became practice in Assyria to write the name of the god Aššur as AN.ŠÁR – signs designating a primeval
deity in Babylonian theogonies. Babylonian Anšar and Kišar – meaning "whole heaven" and "whole earth" –
preceded the deities Enlil (see footnote in § 2.3) and Ninlil. Through an intelligent move the Assyrian Aššur –
not figuring anywhere in the Babylonian pantheon – appeared as head of the Babylonian pantheon, gradually
adopting everything belonging to Enlil. Ninlil – Enlil's wife – became the Assyrian Mullisu (Livingstone
1999:108-109). Ninlil was known in Mesopotamia and Sumer as ancient goddess of the earth, sky, heaven and
the Underworld. She was patron of the city of Nippur (see footnote in § 2.4); her emblems were the serpent, the
heavenly mountain, the stars and a stylised tree; she later assimilated with Ishtar; in Babylon she was called Belit
or Belit-matate; she gave birth to the moon god (Ann & Imel 1993:342). "Theogony": a myth telling of the birth
and genealogy of the gods (Deist 1990:258).
631
Guirand 1996:57.
632
Cornelius & Venter 2002:184.
633
634
Grayson 1992b:753.
635
It is significant that the theophoric element (see footnote on "hypocoristicon" in § 2.3) Ashur appears in a
number of Assyrian kings' names, such as Ashur-uballit I (1363-1328 BC), Ashur-resh-ishi I (1132-1115 BC),
Ashur-bel-kala (1073-1056 BC), Ashur-dan II (934-912 BC), Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC), Ashurbanipal
(died 627 BC) and his son Ashur-etil-ilani (Gwaltney 1994:85-88, 100).
163
deified city Assur, which – according to analysed evidence – was built on a holy spot of pre-
historic times.636 Aššur was regarded as the Assyrian Enlil – the latter, as god of Nippur,637
being one of the most important figures in the Babylonian pantheon. Sennacherib 638 attempt-
ed to replace the cult of the great god Marduk in Babylon by the similar cult of Aššur – Aššur
thus taking the place of Marduk.639 It is noteworthy that Amurru – the eponymous god of the
Amorites – was also perceived as warrior and storm god. These nomadic peoples of the west-
ern desert settled in Mesopotamia in the latter part of the third millennium BC. Although in-
troduced into the Mesopotamian pantheon at a late stage, Amurru was nevertheless presented
as son of An640 – supreme god of the sky in the Babylonian mythology. 641
3.6 Astral deities

Astral deities were not an unfamiliar phenomenon for the ancient Israelites. 642 A number of
references in the Hebrew Bible indicate that Yahweh is Lord of the sun, moon and stars.643
The Babylonian creation epic – the Enuma Elish644 – describes that Marduk was the one who
set the heavenly bodies in order and divided the constellations of the zodiac and months of the
year among the great gods. The Babylonians recorded the positions of the sun, the moon and
the planets Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Saturn and Mars to the date of a birth. The constellations
became the objects of a religious cult. 645 The term twlzm646 appears only in 2 Kings 23:5 in
the Hebrew Bible, referring to prohibited astral cults. The Masoretic Text furnishes scant in-
formation on specific constellations. 647 'Once the threat of idolatry had faded away' 648 the
636
Assur was built on an impressive natural hill, and therefore – as place of strategic significance – its "holiness"
was exploited therein that it had the character of a city and of a god (Livingstone 1999:108).
637
See footnote in § 2.4 on Nippur.
638
Sennacherib – monarch of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during 704-681 BC – tried to maintain control of Baby-
lonia by procuring the throne of the dual monarchy (Arnold 1994:59).
639
The Assyrians did not require conquered peoples to worship Ashur, as they respected local deities, but for
propaganda purposes declared that these deities abandoned their worshippers (Livingstone 1999:109).
640
Van der Toorn 1999a:32.
641
Storm 2001:19.
642
Genesis 37:9; Deuteronomy 4:19; 2 Kings 23:5.
643
Psalm 148:3; Ecclesiastes 12:2; Isaiah 13:10; Jeremiah 31:35; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10; 3:15.
644
See footnotes in § 2.14.6 and § 3.1 for explanatory notes on Marduk and the Enuma Elish, respectively.
645
Zatelli 1999:202.
646
twlzm – transcribed as mazzālôt – refers to astral cults prohibited by Josiah [Judean king 640/39-609 BC].
2 Kings 23:5, 'And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high
places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the
moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens.' Likewise, a slight phonetic variant twrzm – in Job
38:32 – is clearly an astronomical reference (Zatelli 1999:202). Holladay (1971:189) describes twlzm as zodia-
cal signs and twrzm as the constellations, probably consisting of: Venus as evening and morning star, Hyades (in
the constellation of Taurus), the boat of Arcturus and the southern constellations of the zodiac.
647
Job 9:9 Bear and Orion; Job 26:13 fleeing serpent; Job 38:31 Pleiades and Orion; Job 38:32 mazzārôt and
Bear; Isaiah 13:10 'For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be
dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed light'; Amos 5:8 Pleiades and Orion.
648
Zatelli 1999:203.
164
zodiacal constellations were widely promoted within the Judaic culture. The zodiac was set
into the background of rabbinical literature.649 Zodiac symbols are portrayed on the mosaic
floors of several synagogues of the Roman and Byzantine periods. 650 On the mosaic floor of
the sixth century Beth Alpha synagogue – in Israel's Jezreel Valley – the Greek solar god He-
lios rides his four-horse chariot. Around him is the light of the moon and the night sky is
sprinkled with stars. This, and other zodiacs on synagogue floors, 'illustrate an ancient Israel-
ite tradition of retaining elements of pagan sun worship in their own worship'. 651 The identifi-
cation of Yahweh with the sun is supported in a number of biblical passages. 652 The epithet
"Lord of Hosts"653 could intimate that Yahweh was in command of all the stars, and therefore
also associated with the sun. 654
A debate between Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Judah-ha-Nasi655 about the validity of astrology
for Jews is recorded in the tractate Shabbat of the Babylonian Talmud 656 and states, 'The
planetary influence gives wisdom, the planetary influence gives wealth and Israel stands
under planetary influence.' In contrast to this assertion Rabbi Johanan 657 declares, 'There are
no constellations for Israel.'658 However, as the various synagogue pavements signify, some
Jews believed that they stood under planetary influence. Seven pavements in Palestinian
synagogues, all repeating the same basic zodiac composition, have been preserved. These
compositions represent the 'twelve signs of the zodiac in a radial arrangement around He-
lios659 in the chariot of the sun with the personifications of the seasons surrounding it'. 660 He-
lios is always in the centre of the composition in the chariot of the sun. The "frequency and
longevity" of these synagogue decorations indicate that it was a "deliberate adoption" of the
649
The number twelve influenced the rabbinical thought on the zodiac as it represented, inter alia, the number of
tribes, the stones on the ephod (Ex 28:17-21) and the number of oxen which formed the base of the copper basin
in the Jerusalem Temple courtyard (1 Ki 7:23-26) (Zatelli 1999:203). An ephod (dwpa) refers to a garment worn
by the priests. The word is connected to the Syriac sacerdotal vestment. The Septuagint (see footnote on LXX
in § 3.2.2) generally refers to the shoulder strap of a tunic. The ephod was connected to the high priest's breast-
plate, containing the "lots of divination" – the Urim and Thummim – leading thereto that the ephod was regarded
as an agent of divination (see footnote on "divination" in § 2.4) (Stern 1993:189).
650
Zatelli 1999:202-203.
651
Taylor 1994:61.
652
Passages such as Deuteronomy 33:2 'The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone
forth from Mount Paran'; Psalm 80:3 'Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved.'
653
1 Samuel 4:4.
654
Taylor 1994:61.
655
Rabbi Hanina was a Babylonian who studied in Palestine with Rabbi Judah-ha-Nasi; the latter died before AD
230 (Roussin 1997:83).
656
See "Babylonian Talmud" and "Tractates", incorporated in footnotes in § 3.2.1 and § 3.2.2. This specific de-
bate is recorded in the Tractate Shabbat 156b (Roussin 1997:83).
657
Rabbi Johanan lived in Tiberias ca AD 250 (Roussin 1997:83).
658
Roussin 1997:83.
659
The Greek solar deity.
660
Roussin 1997:83.
165
composition and not merely an inadvertent copying of a pagan model. 661 Practice of magic,
astrology and angel worship among the Jews has been attested.662 Of the high priest's robe,
Josephus663 writes, 'the vestment of the high priest being made of linen signified the earth; the
blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells
resembling thunder. … . Each of the sardonyxes declares to us the sun and the moon; … .
And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we under-
stand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not
be mistaken in their meaning.'664
The word Helios is ambivalent, being both a common noun and an actual name. The predom-
inant aspect thereof in a given text can only be determined contextually – for example, reli-
gious, stellar, cosmic or political. Helios, in solar worship, was venerated mainly by individ-
uals. Yet, the word appears frequently in the Greek Septuagint and New Testament. In an-
cient Greek literature Helios has – apart from being the solar disc – virtually no identity.
However, two important aspects were its tireless observation of the human world and being a
manifestation of cosmic order.665 Helios rides in his horse-drawn chariot – as expressed in the
synagogue zodiacs – while Yahweh is portrayed in his chariot of clouds. 666 In the traditions of
the Jewish people, Yahweh is characterised in the Hebrew Bible as heavenly Warrior, causing
'havoc in both the celestial and terrestrial realms'667 as he marches triumphantly from the
"South".668 'Yahweh's theophany in the storm which leads to the blotting out of the sun and
moon'669 is exhibited in Habakkuk 3. Snyman670 mentions that the 'overwhelming picture of
Yahweh's power' as expressed in Habakkuk 3:3-7, was with the intention to send out a mes-
sage 'that Yahweh acts on behalf of his people as He had done in the past when the sun and
moon stood still'.
661
When analysed in terms of the structure of the Sefer HaRazim, the symbolism of the synagogue pavement
compositions becomes clear. The earthly realm is represented in the lowest level, the celestial sphere in the cen-
tre is epitomised by the Helios-in-zodiac panel and the highest sphere – the Torah Shrine panel – symbolises
where Yahweh resides (Roussin 1997:93). Sefer: Jewish medieval literature (Epstein 1959:230).
662
Roussin 1997:89-90.
663
Flavius Josephus (AD 37 - ca 100), son of a priestly Jewish family, later became a Roman citizen and author.
His first work was The Wars of the Jews and in approximately AD 93 he completed the Antiquities of the Jews
(Whiston 1960:vii, ix).
664
Whiston 1960:75.
665
Gordon 1999:394-396.
666
Psalms 18:10-11; 68:17, 33; 104:3; Habakkuk 3:8. The following verses in the Hebrew Bible refer to heaven-
ly "horses and chariots" (Jr 4:13), "horses and chariots of fire" (2 Ki 2:11; 6:17) and 'the horses that the kings of
Judah had dedicated to the sun' (2 Ki 23:11).
667
Prinsloo 2001:479.
668
Habakkuk 3:3-7.
669
Day 2000:155. Habakkuk 3, particularly verse 11, 'the sun and the moon stood still in their place", could be a
reference to Joshua 10:12-13.
670
Snyman 2003:432.
166
In the Masoretic Text, the word Shemesh – XmX – does not actually reflect a divine name.
The Canaanite solar cult is, however, revealed in place names, such as Beth-shemesh,671 En-
shemesh672 and Ir-shemesh. 673 These names probably maintain the memory of sanctuaries
which were earlier devoted to the solar deity. 674 Lipińsky675 is of the opinion that 'the lack of
evident traces of solar worship in Hebrew anthroponomy 676 seems to indicate that the cult of
the sun was not very popular in Syria-Palestine in the Iron Age, contrary to Egypt and to
Mesopotamia'. 677 The Deuteronomist refers to "the host of heaven" 678 and "the sun, the moon
and the constellations"679 worshipped during the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. 680 This led
scholars to theorise that an Assyrian astral cult 'was imposed upon Judah as a symbol of sub-
jection and vassalage'. 681 Shimige was the Hurrian solar deity that had much in common with
Shemesh. Shimige took note of the acts of man, blessed the righteous and punished the evil-
doer. As divine judge he was often involved in treaties. His cult was not limited to Anatolia
as he was also venerated along the Phoenician coast.682
Taylor683 suggests that the Israelites did indeed consider the sun as an icon or symbol of Yah-
weh. Close examination of the Taanach cult stand 684 shows, inter alia, the asherah as a cult
symbol next to a "portrait" of the goddess herself – the goddess had therefore not been sepa-
rated from her cult symbol. On the one tier of the stand a horse with sun disc on its back is
depicted, and on another tier, two cherubim. The two cherubim protect a vacant space with
the invisible deity, Yahweh, between them – represented by his symbol, the sun. 685 Images on
the cult stand have recently been identified by scholars as the Canaanite Ba‛al and Asherah.
671
Joshua 15:10; 21:16.
672
Joshua 15:7; 18:17.
673
Joshua 19:41.
674
Lipińsky 1999:764-765.
675
Lipińsky 1999:765.
676
Anthroponomy is the 'study of the laws that govern the relationship between man and his environment' (Deist
1990:14).
677
Seemingly contrary to Lipińsky's point of view, Ezekiel 8:16-18 mentions, inter alia, 'men with their backs to
the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east'. Lipińsky
(1999:765), however, interprets Ezekiel's vision as having the meaning that the men 'were not sun-worshippers,
but devotees of Yahweh'.
678
2 Kings 21:3.
679
2 Kings 23:5.
680
Judean kings: Manasseh (687/86-642/41 BC) and Amon (642/41-640/39 BC) (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
681
Lipińsky 1999:765.
682
Van der Toorn 1999d:773. See brief referral to Shamash and solar mythology in Qohelet further on in this
paragraph.
683
Taylor 1994:53-54, 58.
684
For a discussion of the Taanach cult stand, see § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach".
685
In congruence with the Jerusalem Temple, the depictions on the Taanach stand symbolise the seemingly emp-
ty shrine – Holy of Holies – where the invisible Yahweh dwelled (1 Ki 6:23-28). The expression "the Lord
[Yahweh] of Hosts who sits on the cherubim" (1 Sm 4:4; 2 Sm 6:2) is 'virtually synonymous with the theology of
the Jerusalem Temple' (Taylor 1994:58, 60).
167
Taylor,686 however, argues that the subjects on the tiers are Yahweh – and not Ba‛al – and
Asherah. Therefore, according to this interpretation, Asherah is understood to be Yahweh's
consort.687 The Tanaach horse – an animal associated with Yahweh – and its sun disc are rem-
iniscent of 'the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the
house of the Lord … and he [Josiah] burned the chariots of the sun with fire'. 688 The horses
and chariots were placed at the entrance of the Temple 'facing eastwards, towards the gate by
which Yahweh, the God of Israel, has entered the sanctuary'. 689 Thus, the sun's chariot was
Yahweh's vehicle. 690 The ancient idea of a chariot of the sun was born from the perception
that the sun is a wheel turning through the heavens – as attested by the legend of Elijah being
carried up to the heaven in a chariot and horses of fire. 691
Eighth century BC Aramaic inscriptions from Zinçirli mention the divine triad, El, the sun
god and Rakib-El – charioteer of El – suggesting that the sun's chariot was in fact El's vehicle
driven by Rakib-El.692 A similar perception probably existed regarding the Jerusalem Temple
and the episode of the ascension of Elijah in Northern Israel. 693 Lipińsky694 argues that 'there
can be little doubt that the sun was conceived in biblical times as a vivid symbol of Yahweh's
Glory'.695 Although solar symbolism might have proffered a danger for Yahweh-worship,
several texts in the Hebrew Bible stress Yahweh's authority over the sun and the moon. 696
Gericke697 indicates that the word XmX appears at least thirty-five times explicitly in the book
of Qohelet. 698 This particular "sun imagery" appears frequently in the phrase "under the sun"
– XmXh txt. Apart from these examples of explicit occurrences many instances of implicit
sun imagery seem to be present, suggesting 'the possibility of allusions to solar mythology'699
and symbolism. It was Shamash – Shemesh – in Mesopotamian solar mythology that
686
Taylor 1994:54.
687
Taylor (1994:53-55, 61) comes to this conclusion in the light of the particular portrayals on the cult stand, as
well as the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom mentioning Yahweh and his Asherah. (See § 2.9
and § 2.10, as well as § 4.3.9 and § 4.3.10 for a discussion of the finds and the inscriptions). Within the context
of the Israelite religion, it was rather Yahweh than Ba‛al, who was closely associated with Asherah.
688
2 Kings 23:11. See also discussion of the "Horse figurines" in § 2.13 under the same subtitle.
689
Lipiński 1999:765. Ezekiel 43:2, 4; 44:1-2.
690
Read also Habakkuk 3:8 in this respect.
691
2 Kings 2:11-12; 6:15, 17.
692
Rakib-El was the holy patron of the Aramaic dynasty of Zinçirli (Lipińsky 1999:765).
693
Lipińsky 1999:765. 2 Kings 2:11-12.
694
Lipińsky 1999:766.
695
Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3-4 describe Yahweh's coming as the rising of the sun. According to
Isaiah 59:19 and Ezekiel 43:2, 4; 44:1-2 his glory comes from the east, 'while Isaiah 60:19 announces that Yah-
weh's Glory will replace the sunlight when the new Jerusalem will arise' (Lipińsky 1999:766).
696
Genesis 1:14-18; Joshua 10:12-14; 2 Kings 20:9-11; Job 9:7; Psalms 74:16; 104:19; 136:7-9; 148:3-6; Jere-
miah 31:35.
697
Gericke 2003:245-246.
698
The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew Bible.
699
Gericke 2003:250.
168
instructed the righteous in wisdom and was specifically associated with concepts like justice,
time and life – similar themes to those found in Qohelet.700
In his discussion of Psalm 104, Dion701 argues that much of this psalm has been procured
from Egyptian and Syrian traditions 'reclaiming for the God of Israel an important part of the
common theology of the ancient Near East.' Some of its elements reflect Akhenaten's 702 lega-
cy and the literary tradition of the Amarna solar deity. Many symbols and phrases, typical of
Ancient Near Eastern storm gods, have also been incorporated into Psalm 104 – the two tradi-
tions of storm and solar deities harmoniously blended by the psalmist. Appearances of Yah-
weh in Psalm 104703 'are reminiscent of various aspects of the epiphanies of the storm god',704
with lightning as its main iconographic attribute. The legacy of solar worship in Egypt has
been adjusted to the character of Yahweh. The Egyptian Hymn to the Aten705 has something
in common with Psalm 104. 706 Dion707 notes that many place names containing the element
"Shemesh", as well as various horse figurine artefacts with a disc object between their ears,
are an indication that solar worship was deeply ingrained in Palestine when the new nation
Israel emerged. Under the Israelite Monarchy some solar symbolism had been assimilated by
Yahwism before the violent reaction of the deuteronomists and seventh century BC prophets.
Depictions in Psalm 104 are reminiscent of the pairing of storm and solar deities in other An-
cient Near Eastern cultures. Pairing of these two gods is in recognition of "their joint suprem-
acy". Dion708 concludes that Psalm 104 is explicitly addressed to Yahweh, the only God of
post-exilic Judah, although many motifs in this psalm are borrowed from traditions and im-
agery of deities other than the God of Israel. 709
According to Smith,710 'the solar descriptions of Yahweh during the monarchy perhaps furnish
the background to descriptions of the sun in biblical cosmology'. Some scholars interpret the
solar language in Psalm 19 as a polemic against solar worship in Israel whereas Smith does
700
Gericke 2003:244, 251.
701
Dion 1991:44.
702
See discussion on Akhenaten's "monotheism" in Excursus 4.
703
Psalm 104:3-4, 7.
704
Dion 1991:51.
705
See Excursus 4 for a discussion of the Aten – the cult of the sun disc. This hymn – a piece of Egyptian reli-
gious poetry – was discovered at Tell el-Amarna on the west wall of the tomb of Ay (Dion 1991:58). Ay, a vi-
zier, was the father of Nefertiti – a lady of non-royal blood – who married Akhenaten (see Excursus 4) (Clayton
1994:121).
706
For a comparison of the Aten Hymn and Psalm 104, see Dion (1991:60).
707
Dion 1991:64-65.
708
Dion 1991:69.
709
For a detailed discussion of Psalm 104 and the influence of Ancient Near Eastern mythologies on the compi-
lation of the psalm, see Dion (1991:43-71).
710
Smith 1990:120-121.
169
not perceive it as polemical, but as an attestation of the glory of God. The sun is a positive
indication of order in Yahweh's creation.
Josephus711 mentions that the devotion of the Essenes 712 took a particular form, 'for before
sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they
had received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising'. 713
Inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia were aware of the link between the phases of the moon
and the tides and consequently interpreted the moon as being responsible for the water supply
to the fields and all living entities. Therefore the moon god, 'in addition to his role as illumi-
nator of the night',714 was regarded as a fertility deity. This aspect of the deity was reflected
in the powerful and virile bull, visualised in the similarity between the bull's horns and the so-
called "horns" of the "new" moon, 'symbolising the eternal cycle of nature'.715 By the end of
the Old Babylonian Period 716 the association of the bull with the lunar deity began to diminish
in visual representations, while the connection between the bull and the storm god became
more prevalent.717 A phenomenon in the imagery of the Ancient Near East is the 'sharing (of)
identical emblems by different deities'. 718 Some creatures may represent the distinctive fea-
tures of the deities who "control" them – such as the bull and the storm god – and at the same
time shed light on comparable characteristics that personified other deities. In this regard the
horns of the bull and the "horns" of the lunar deity are a typical example. 719
– xry – is the most common biblical Hebrew word for "moon" or "moon god". The word
appears close to thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs in several Jewish apocryphal and
pseudepigraphic works – at times in combination with the solar deity Shemesh. Yr and terms
711
Whiston 1960:476.
712
Essenes: a Jewish sect who lived in the desert close to the Dead Sea from ca 200 BC to ca AD 70 (Deist
1990:86).
713
The Essenes believed they were the people of the "New Covenant". They strictly adhered to the Levitical
purity laws and were scrupulous in their avoidance of ceremonial uncleanness. Although Josephus thought the
Essenes engaged in solar worship, neither of the ancient writers, Philo or Hippolytes, makes any reference to this
extraordinary practice (Farmer 1962:146).
714
Ornan 2001b:3.
715
Ornan 2001b:3. Fragments of a wall painting from Mari – contemporary to the Ur III period [2112-2004 BC]
– attest a connection between the bull and the lunar deity. Such a link is furthermore evident during the Old
Babylonian Period [2000-1595 BC] as portrayed, for example, on a number of cylinder seals and impressions
(Ornan 2001b:7).
716
Old Babylonian Period: 2000-1595 BC (Arnold 1994:47).
717
Ornan 2001b:14. A Late Bronze statue from Hazor – "the-deity-on-the-bull" – attests the mingling of storm
and lunar deity attributes (Ornan 2001b:24-25).
718
Ornan 2001b:3.
719
Ornan 2001b:3.
170
describing the lesser astral bodies – the stars, constellations or "hosts of heaven" – were often
grouped together. At the same time, the terminology "hosts of heaven" in the Hebrew Bible,
was indicative of the inclusion of all luminaries. 720 Symbols on seals, as well as evidence in
the Hebrew Bible, bear witness that the cult of the "hosts of heaven" was widespread in sev-
enth century BC Judah721. According to the Deuteronomist, astral cults in Judah increased
significantly during the seventh and sixth centuries BC. 722
In the Mesopotamian tradition the lunar deity was known by the name Nanna, Suen and Ash-
imbabbar. During the Old Babylonian Period Suen was written as Sîn – attested in lexical
texts from Ugarit and Ebla. Documents from Mari723 refer to Sîn of Haran. More than one
lunar tradition could be accountable for the different names of the lunar deities. According to
traditions in antiquity, 'the moon governed a vast and visible celestial assembly'. 724 These
"night luminaries" moved with regularity across the skies controlling the heavens, as well as
an alien world. It furthermore represented the cultural and natural life cycle of birth, growth,
decay and death. The cultic calendar was determined by the movements of the moon; the lat-
ter thus being awarded a prominent place in Mesopotamian myth and ritual. 725 The lunar dei-
ty – an immediate offspring of Enlil726 and Ninlil727 – was created before the solar deity, and
gave birth to lesser luminaries. In both the history of ancient Mesopotamian religions and
early Syrian traditions the lunar deity enjoyed widespread popularity. 728 In the Assyro-
Babylonian mythology this deity occupied the main position in the astral triad, with Shamash
and Ishtar – the sun and the planet Venus, respectively – as its children.729
In the Aramaic-speaking world the Sumerian and Babylonian Sîn was the name of the lunar
deity residing in Haran. Although venerated everywhere, Ur 730 remained the cult centre of
720
Schmidt 1999:585. Genesis 37:9 is an example.
721
Examples are Deuteronomy 4:19; 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Nehemiah 9:6; Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah
8:2; 19:13; Daniel 8:10, 13.
722
Keel 1998:101-102.
723
Documents from Mari at the beginning of the second millennium BC (Stol 1999:782).
724
Schmidt 1999:586.
725
Sîn was visualised as an old man with a long beard, the colour of lapis-lazuli. In the evening he got into his
barque, which appeared in the form of a brilliant crescent moon, and travelled through the nocturnal sky. Due to
his illumination of the night he was the enemy of criminals (Guirand 1996:57).
726
See footnote on Enlil in § 2.3.
727
See footnote in § 3.5, incorporating Ninlil. The moon god, Nanna/Sîn, was born from an illicit union of Enlil
and Ninlil (Stol 1999:783).
728
Schmidt 1999:586-587.
729
Guirand 1996:57.
730
Ur was an important Sumerian city during the third millennium BC and beginning of the second millennium
BC. Apart from Babylon, it is the best known Mesopotamian site in the Hebrew Bible, particularly connected to
Abraham (Gn 11:31). It is well known for its ziggurat (see footnote in § 2.4) constructed by Ur-nammu, founder
of the Third Dynasty (2112-2094 BC). Ur-nammu dedicated the ziggurat to the moon god Nanna/Sîn. The
171
Nanna/Sîn. The Assyrians considered the moon god of Haran as a special patron to extend
their boundaries.731 The name is attested as a theophoric 732 element in Assyrian and Babylo-
nian personal names.733 The cult was promoted by Nabonidus 734 who gave Sîn designations
such as "Lord/King of the Gods", "God of the Gods". dNin-gal was Sîn's consort.735 The lu-
nar emblem of Haran – of Aramaean origin – portrays the moon god in a boat. The symbol of
a crescent on a pole was common in southern Mesopotamia during the first half of the second
millennium BC.736
The Hebrew Bible attests the admiration of man for the multitude of stars created by God, 737
yet, in the Ancient Near East stars were widely regarded as gods. Likewise, the existence of
astrological references in the Hebrew Bible cannot be denied, 'often hidden in the most an-
cient layers of the text, revealing deified aspects of cosmic phenomena as distinguished from
mere physical/natural elements'.738 For example, traces of superstition and divination associ-
ated with star cults – probably from Mesopotamian origin – are present in the astral dream of
Joseph. 739 Likewise, Joshua 10:12-13 could be interpreted as an incantation prayer uttered in
a context of astrological conjecture.740 In post-exilic tradition, the non-religious observation
of stars – influenced by Hellenistic science – 'gradually became a form of astrological and as-
tronomical speculation'741 partly applied by rabbis.742 At the same time Babylonian astral div-
ination was common among post-exilic Jews. Reference to the stars as a prophetic symbol in
Daniel 8-10 is an allusion to those Jews who submitted to Hellenistic paganism. 743 It is, how-
ever, extremely problematic to identify the particular sources underlying the Yahwistic lunar
symbolism, as an 'admixture of Mesopotamian and west Asiatic lunar traditions throughout
the Levant' – although well documented – spans several centuries.744
discovery of several royal tombs at Ur is, however, responsible for its archaeological fame (Margueron
1992:766-767).
731
Keel 1998:68.
732
See "theophoric name" incorporated in a footnote on "hypocoristicon" in § 2.3.
733
Personal names such as Sanherib [Sennacherib], Sanballat and Shenazzar (Stol 1999:782).
734
Nabonidus: Babylonian ruler 555-539 BC (Bodine 1994:33).
735
Stol 1999:782-783.
736
Keel 1998:68, 87, 101.
737
For example, Genesis 1:14-16; Job 9:7-9; Psalms 8:3; 147:4; 148:3-5; Jeremiah 31:35.
738
Lelli 1999:811. Jeremiah indicates that his contemporaries regard heaven as an astral deity, and not a natural
entity entirely dependent on God's will (Jr 14:22). King Josiah opposed all idolatrous cults destroying objects in
the Temple associated with astral cults (2 Ki 23:4-5, 11) (Lelli 1999:811).
739
Genesis 37:9.
740
Lelli 1999:812.
741
Lelli 1999:813.
742
Most of the rabbis' discussions in this connection concerned the determination of holy days (Lelli 1999:813).
743
Lelli 1999:810-814.
744
Schmidt 1999:588.
172
Shalem – as the deity Šalim from Ugaritic texts – was probably the divine power symbolised
by Venus as the Evening Star. The divine name Šalim is found in personal names of the earli-
est known Mesopotamian Semites and later Amorites. It also occurs in place names 745 and as
a theophoric element in some Israelite personal names.746 Shagar (Morning Star) and Shalem
(Evening Star) were offspring of the Canaanite El and two "women" he encountered at the
seashore.747 Speculative connections link Shalem with the alleged cult of the Venus star in
Jerusalem and the cult of Melchizedek. 748 Further links have been suggested with the Star of
Bethlehem. 749
3.7 Canaanite El
The meaning of the word, or name, El, ’el, ’il(u), is God/god. The etymology of the word has
not been determined conclusively. ’Ilu, as an appellative for deities, has been attested in An-
cient Mesopotamia, as well as in some of the Ugaritic texts – such as the mythological, cultic
and epic texts. These texts furnish more than five hundred references to El, who is denoted as
'a distinct deity who, residing on the sacred mountain, occupies within the myths the position
of master of the Ugaritic pantheon, carrying the title mlk, king'.750 The meaning "god" for the
term ’il is well documented in Old Akkadian, beginning in pre-Sargonid times until late in the
Babylonian Period.751 The appellative ’il appeared in Old South Arabian dialects, but was
replaced by ’ilāh in North Arabic. Although the appellative may have been used in an ex-
pression such as ’il Haddu – the god Haddu – it was rarely applied as such. As a proper name
it occurred in the earliest stages of Semitic languages which could indicate that this designa-
tion – alongside its use as a generic appellative – belongs to Proto-Semitic. 752
The couple El and Asherah held the highest authority in the Syro-Palestinian mythology. At
some point in the traditions of the Syro-Palestinian religious history El was acknowledged as
745
Place names, such as Jerusalem: yĕrûšālaim (Huffmon 1999b:755).
746
Theophoric personal names, such as David's sons Absalom (’Abšālôm) and Solomon (Šĕlōmōh) (Huffmon
1999b:755).
747
See § 3.2.1 and footnote in § 3.2.1 on Shagar and Shalem.
748
Abram's encounter with Melchizedek is recounted in Genesis 14:18-20. He is described as king of Salem
[later Jerusalem] and priest of God Most High (’ēl ‛elyôn). It is not possible to determine whether the image of
this priest-king was devised by the author of Genesis 14, or whether he was known as such in certain Jewish
circles. The name Melchizedek means "King of Righteousness". Apart from Genesis 14, his name appears in
Psalm 110:4 in the Hebrew Bible, as well as in the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament (Heb 5:6; 6:20;
7:17) (Astour 1992b:684-686).
749
Huffmon 1999b:755-757.
750
Herrmann 1999b:274-275.
751
Pre-Sargonid: before 2360 BC (Cross 1974:242). Babylon was captured by Persian Cyrus in 539 BC (Arnold
1994:66), thus signalling the end of the Babylonian Period.
752
Cross 1974:242-244.
173
leader of the pantheon.753 Several epithets describe El as father and creator, as well as the
"ancient one" or the "eternal one". 754 El could create by modelling from clay, by a spoken
word, or even by sexual intercourse. Even so, the creation of a new human being was consid-
ered to be by way of a mental process wherein both El and Asherah participated, and not by
their physical interaction. Ancient kings boasted that they were the physical offspring of dei-
ties. 755 An important Ugaritic text – the hieros gamos756 – recounts the birth of Shagar and
Shalem,757 twin sons of El and his two wives. 758 In the Ugaritic Ba‘al759 texts, El behaves
"passively and ineffectually" although other texts imply that El was very important in Uga-
rit.760
Despite Ba‘al's rise to a dominant position among the gods in the Ugaritic texts, the myths
never lose sight of the importance of El. Gods were powerless to undertake any assignment
without his permission. Although not directly portrayed in the Ugaritic and Phoenician my-
thologies, there are indications in the texts that Ba‘al – who actively rose to kingship – must
have dethroned the older and less virile El in order to secure this position.761 L'Heureux762
mentions that both internal and external evidence seem to indicate that Ba‘al gradually took
control of El's functions. Internal evidence which allegedly demonstrates the degradation of
El and his replacement by Ba‘al, is based, inter alia, on arguments that El is a remote figure in
texts dealing with Ba‘al and Anat, that his dwelling place is in faraway regions and that
treatment by Asherah and Anat indicate his feebleness – particularly their acclamation that
"Ba‘al is our king". It furthermore seems that El was impotent.763 Some scholars argue that
the Ugaritic text CTA 1 – although fragmentary – describes El's dethronement in the conflict
between him and Ba‘al.764 External evidence involving the strife between El and Ba‘al is
mainly based on parallels in comparative mythological material 765 in the Kumarbi myths,766
753
Handy 1994:69.
754
Cross 1974:245.
755
Korpel 2001:130.
756
Hieros gamos: sacred marriage; marriage between a divine and human being (Deist 1990:114).
757
Shagar and Shalem: Dawn and Dusk; see discussion in § 3.2.1.
758
Cross 1974:246.
759
See § 3.5 for a discussion of Ba‘al.
760
Lemche 1988:203.
761
Mullen 1980:84, 92-93.
762
L'Heureux 1979:3-8.
763
For a detailed discussion of internal evidence supporting the alleged degradation of El, see L'Heureux
(1979:4-28).
764
See L'Heureux (1979:18-26) for a discussion and suggested interpretation of the Ugaritic text CTA 1.
765
For a discussion of the comparative mythological material, see L'Heureux (1979:29-49).
766
In the Hittite myths Kumarbi was the father of the gods. On a partially preserved tablet the victory of the
weather god Teshub – Hittite version of Ba‘al/Hadad – over Kumarbi, is recounted (Willis 1993:66).
174
Sanchuniathon's work preserved by Eusebius, 767 and Hesiod's Theogony.768 The above-
mentioned evidence is, however, far from being conclusive. 769
The divine council, or assembly of El, is attested in the Ugaritic myths. The concept of an
assembly of the gods was a familiar religious theme in the cultures of Mesopotamia, Canaan,
Phoenicia, Egypt and Israel. El's dwelling-place – his tent – was described as 'being of
somewhat elaborate construction'. 770 It contained more than one room – reminiscent of the
Israelite Tabernacle – with many elaborate ornaments. External evidence suggests that it was
a tent-shrine and not a permanent structure. A short Akkadian text from the Mari archives
refers to the qersū as a sacred construction.771 The same word appears repeatedly in the Uga-
ritic texts in the description of El's mountain sanctuary. His dwelling was associated with a
mountain – his wisdom manifested from his tent-shrine on his holy mountain. 772 He was 'at-
tributed with a kind of wisdom that made him judge everything rightly'. 773
A well-known designation, El the Bull, is a metaphor expressing his divine dignity and
strength.774 The occurrence of El and Shadday in parallelism775 reinforces the idea that Shad-
day is an El epithet. In Canaanite and Mesopotamian mythology the divine council consisted
of high gods, each connected to a group of lesser gods. Shadday may have been the high god
with whom lesser Shadday gods were linked. The latter have been associated tentatively with
the biblical šēdîm – a term referring to a secondary or intermediary spirit or deity, which
could be either protective or threatening, good or bad. The name "Shadday", and thus Shad-
day gods, have been found in Transjordan.776
767
A fourth century Christian writer Eusebius copied material from a third century philosopher Porphyry, who
had the History of the Phoenicians – written at the end of the first century AD by Philo of Byblos – as source.
Unfortunately Porphyry changed the contents of sources to suit himself. It is unclear whether Eusebius also
made use of Philo's original text. Information for Philo's narratives – purported to be myths from Syria-Palestine
– came from early collections by the Phoenician Sanchuniathon. Preserved passages are found in Eusebius'
Preparation for the Gospel. Sanchuniathon's information ostensibly came from ancient documents on the Phoe-
nician culture retained at various cult centres. Philo stated that the material derived from Sanchuniathon origi-
nated before the time of the Greek culture. In Philo's history, 'El was depicted as defending his status and posi-
tion by violent and unacceptable means' (Handy 1994:44-45, 94).
768
Hesiod's poem, the Theogony, was written approximately during the eighth century BC and 'is the oldest
Greek attempt at mythological classification' (Guirand 1996:87). The Greeks felt the necessity to provide their
gods with a genealogy and history (Guirand 1996:87). Philo's portrayal of El happily killing gods in revenge has
much in common with the Theogony (Handy 1994:94).
769
L'Heureux 1979:4.
770
Mullen 1980:134.
771
Qersū: frame of a priestly tabernacle. See footnote on qersum and hurpatum in § 2.14.1.
772
Mullen 1980:113, 120, 134, 136, 151.
773
Herrmann 1999b:275.
774
Herrmann 1999b:275.
775
Shadday: the almighty. El Shadday (ydX la), as in Genesis 17:1; 28:3; 43:14; 48:3; Exodus 6:2.
776
Lutzky 1998:28-29, 31.
175
Bartlett777 indicates that 'the deity El was almost certainly known in Edom', as attested by in-
scriptions on seals found at Tawilan778 and Petra,779 consecutively bearing the names sm‛‛l
and ‛Abdi-‛el.
The relationship between the God of Israel (Elohim) and the Canaanite god El is to a great
extent centred upon the religion of the Patriarchs. 780 The religious traditions in the patriarchal
narratives of Genesis distinguish two types of references to the deity. "God of the fathers"
linked the god to an ancestor, where the ancestor – in some instances – is unnamed, 781 while
in other texts the name of the ancestor is given. 782 The second type of reference gives the full
formula, "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob". 783 These formulas indi-
cate that the deity was worshipped by the family or clan of the person whose name was used
to identify the god. In a reconstruction widely accepted by scholars, the deity established a
relationship with the ancestor and, through him, with the clan. 784
Biblical Elohim portrays many features that could possibly have been derived from Canaanite
El.785 Likewise, biblical Yahweh shares qualities and epithets with Canaanite El, such as crea-
tor and father,786 old age and wisdom,787 patience and mercy, 788 eternal kingship.789
Excursus 1: Israelite religion and syncretism

Dever790denotes that religion could be defined as a 'verbal and non-verbal structure of interaction
with superhuman being(s)', and Deist791describes syncretism as 'the reconciliation and subsequent
conflation of (parts of) two (or more) distinct religious systems on the basis of elements common to
777
Bartlett 1989:196, 211.
778
Tawilan – north of Petra – has been identified with a seventh to sixth century BC unfortified agricultural
Edomite village (Negev & Gibson 2001:494).
779
Petra – the famous capital of the Nabateans – is situated in a valley of the mountains of West-Edom (Cohen
1962c:772).
780
L'Heureux 1979:49.
781
Genesis 31:5 yhla, 29 yhla, 42 yhla; 43:23 yhla; 46:3 yhla; 49:25 la; 50:17 yhla; Exodus 15:2
yhla; 18:4 yhla.
782
Genesis 26:24 ~hrba yhla; 28:13 qxcy yhla … ~hrba yhla; 31:53 rwhn yhla … ~hrba yhla.
783
Exodus 3:6 bq[y yhla qxcy yhla ~hrba yhla $yba yhla; see also Exodus 3:15, 16; 4:5.
784
L'Heureux 1979:49, 51-52.
785
See § 3.8.2 for attributes ascribed to Elohim in the Masoretic Text.
786
'Bull El his father, king El who created him' (CTA 3.5.43; 4.1.5; 4.4.47) and 'Is not he your father, who creat-
ed you' (Dt 32:6) (L'Heureux 1979:49).
787
El: CTA 3.5.38; 4.4.41; 4.5.66; 10.3.6 and biblical Daniel 7:9 (L'Heureux 1979:49).
788
A standard epithet of El: "the kind one, the god of mercy" and biblical ' … the Lord, a god merciful and gra-
cious, slow to anger' (Ex 34:6) (L'Heureux 1979:49).
789
The title "Eternal King", assigned to El, is equivalent to the Hebrew title (~lw[ $lm) applied to biblical
Yahweh in Psalm 10:16 and Jeremiah 10:10 (L'Heureux 1979:49-50). See § 3.8.1 for attributes ascribed to Yah-
weh in the Masoretic Text.
790
Dever 2005:2.
791
Deist 1990:250.
176
them both (or all).' Dever,792 furthermore, mentions that the modern concept of ancient Israelite reli-
gion sketches an idealistic, romantic portrait, which, however, obscures the reality of that religion.
He distinguishes at least two religions, namely "folk" religion and "official" or "state" religion. Alt-
hough the latter presupposes 'that the state had the power to enforce religious conformity', 793 it is
doubtful whether that happened. Various expressions of beliefs and practices in Israel were tolerated
under the rubric of "Yahwism". Israelite religion is an example of a cultural phenomenon. Miller 794
indicates that 'any effort to describe the religion of ancient Israel' has to conclude that 'there was not
a single understanding or expression of what the religion was'.
According to Boshoff,795 a responsible interpreter of the biblical text should take into account all as-
pects that influenced the forming of the text. The background of believers constitutes the historical,
geographical, sociological, cultural and religious environment. History of religion entails an 'histori-
cal investigation of developments, changes and dynamics within or among religions'.796 Two distinct
religio-historical approaches to the Hebrew Bible, at the beginning of the twentieth century, can be
recognised, namely the predominantly German religionsgeschichtliche Schule797 and the Myth and
Ritual School.798 There is currently a significant growth in publications regarding Israel's religious
history. Scholars suggest a variety of approaches to the religio-historical problems in the Hebrew
Bible, all of which are 'to a great extent dependent upon the results of other disciplines'.799 The bibli-
cal texts are, however, a primary source for the history of the Israelite religion. Albertz800 indicates
that the development of the history of the Israelite religion as a discipline is complex and often de-
scribed in a variety of perspectives. It should not be defined as merely a history of ideas or of the spir-
itual, but should be 'presented as a process which embraces all aspects of the historical develop-
ment'.801 The period before the formation of the state is, particularly, "burdened with uncertainties".
Consistent with the information in the Hebrew Bible, the Israelite religion has a beginning in history;
however, such a claim remains a problem. According to the Pentateuch, 'there was a prelude to the
religion of Israel in the religion of the patriarchs'.802
Cross803 is of the opinion that scholars should not only trace the origin and development of Israel's
religion, but also its emergence from a Canaanite past, its furtherance from this past, its new emer-
gence and 'subsequent changes and evolution'. Israelite religion evolved from Ancient Near Eastern
religions, particularly from the religious culture of Canaan. Due to archaeological research, the his-
tory of Israel has become part of that of the Ancient Near Eastern world. It is, therefore, now possible
to describe the religion of Israel from an Ancient Near Eastern point of view, notably West Semitic
mythology and cult. It should also be kept in mind that 'Israel as a nation was born in an era of ex-
traordinary chaos and social turmoil.804
792
Dever 2005:4-5, 8.
793
Dever 2005:5.
794
Miller 2000b:46.
795
Boshoff 1994:121-123, 126, 129.
796
Boshoff 1994:122.
797
This school is associated with the name of Hermann Gunkel (Boshoff 1994:123).
798
The Myth and Ritual School is connected to the name of SH Hooke (Boshoff 1994:123). See also the refer-
ence in § 3.1 to the link between this school and the nineteenth century scholar Robertson Smith.
799
Boshoff 1994:129.
800
Albertz 1994:3,11, 23-25.
801
Albertz 1994:11.
802
Albertz 1994:25.
803
Cross 2004:8.
804
Cross 2004:11.
177
Scholars generally agree that the main function of the Israelite cult was to actualise the tradition.
Seasonal feasts celebrated the great redemptive acts of the past, and at the same time traditions were
renewed. The Deuteronomist, Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel and the Complaint Psalms were probably con-
cerned to reinterpret Israel's cult and thereby authenticate Israel's tradition.805 The cult dominated
the existence of the Israelite people, being also the medium to express their spiritual and cultural life.
The cultic process was influenced by various factors in the selection, developing, altering and preserv-
ing of traditions. Historical events were interpreted as the saving deeds of Yahweh, and therefore the
very existence of the Hebrew Bible is indebted to the Israelite cult. Canaanite and other foreign influ-
ences constantly threatened the cult. In the expressing of the theophany of Yahweh, ancient Canaan-
ite material was used, slightly altered.806 Lemche807 is of the opinion that Israelite religion can only be
sought in the Hebrew Bible; the religion described there is quite different from that which was present
in Palestine during the biblical period. Biblical scholars generally apply the term "Israelite religion"
in a questionable way.
Internal pluralism can be observed in the Israelite religion, distinguishing, inter alia, domestic reli-
gion, city religion, royal religion; these are all 'aspects of an overarching religious system'. 808 It is
thus possible to differentiate between the religious practices carried out by families and those per-
formed by the state. Families were concerned with devotion to a local god, as well as the cult of the
ancestors – particularly veneration of the "God of the father". The Hebrew Bible applies this designa-
tion to Yahweh in his capacity as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Scholars increasingly re-
search the position of goddesses in Israelite religion. Literary, as well as epigraphic data reveal that
the goddesses Asherah and the Queen of Heaven enjoyed particular prominence in the Israelite cult –
as discussed in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4. The possibility to identify Asherah as consort of Yahweh
'calls for a reassessment of the interpretation of the many fertility figurines (most notably the so-called
pillar figurines and the Astarte plaques)809 found in Israel'.810 The potential of an official consort for
Yahweh is a "spectacular and new" perspective.811
Scholars growingly interpret Israelite monotheism and aniconism as relatively late developments –
possibly enforced only in the Second Temple Period. They furthermore tend to recognise early Israel-
ites as Canaanites who developed a new identity; their devotion should thus be seen as a variant of the
Canaanite cult.812 Biblical religion, therefore, should be considered essentially as a subset of Israelite
religion, and the latter as a subset of Canaanite religion. At the beginning of the first millennium BC
ancient Israel began to show distinctive religious traits that were clearly a progression from a Ca-
naanite matrix. Extra-biblical evidence is, however, of paramount importance for a perception of this
development.813 The Israelites not only adopted the language of Canaan, but also appropriated much
of the Canaanite cultic vocabulary – as established by epigraphic finds.814
805
Childs 1962b:75, 77.
806
Kapelrud 1977:102-103, 113, 117, 124.
807
Lemche 1994:165.
808
Van der Toorn 1998:14.
809
For a discussion of the various figurines found in Israel, see § 2.13, subtitle "Female figurines".
810
811
Van der Toorn 1998:13-18.
812
813
Coogan 1987:115-116,120.
814
Obermann 1949:318-319. Two examples of appropriated Canaanite cultic language are, firstly, "Rider-of-
the-Clouds" (an epithet applied to Ba‛al long before the time of the Israelites) and, secondly, "Creator of heaven
178
Zevit815 mentions that, within its dynamic social system, Israelite religion was regarded as a compli-
cated phenomenon 'characterized by a complexity not easily described'. Non-Yahwistic theophoric
names convey loyalty to deities other than Yahweh, and at the same time displayed public knowledge
of other deities. Most Israelites knew Yahweh as their patron deity, 'knew his consort Asherah, and
knew other deities as well to whom they referred by (the) general idioms'816 – such as "sons of gods",
"other gods". These "other deities" were probably worshipped through similar, but different, rites; the
same god might even have been venerated at various places for disparate reasons. Evidence that
more than one deity was worshipped is usually in the form of paired appurtenances, such as two steles
for two deities at the temple of Arad.817 According to Berlinerblau,818 recent studies challenge the as-
sumption that "popular religion", in the Israelite context, comprised of a unified, homogenous group
which stood apart from a unified homogenous "official religion". In ancient Israel the official religion
was largely that which is presented in the Hebrew Bible. There are many indications in the Masoretic
Text of overt hostility by the authors towards the institutions of power and their religious affinities. In
some instances the legitimacy of the Monarchy is called into question.819 It could, however, be as-
sumed that biblical Yahwism was at some point an "official religion". It thus seems that the religious
social structure of ancient Israel consisted of two interrelated layers; official religion being the reli-
gion of the orthodoxy who wielded power against the "others", who comprised the popular religious
groups – the latter being women, non-privileged economic classes and heterodoxies.820
As indicated earlier in paragraph 3.2.2, Miller821 mentions that, although the Hebrew Bible condemns
the veneration of any other deity alongside Yahweh, polemics in the Hebrew Bible and the extent of
the reaction from the prophets and deuteronomists regarding the worship of other gods signify the
existence of syncretism among the Israelites. According to Hadley,822 Asherah, denoted as a goddess
in her own right during the Monarchical Period, developed into an object during the Exile. She fur-
thermore mentions that it is possible to trace the process by which this evolution took place. The god-
dess Astarte – who was presumably worshipped on a large scale in Palestine – was demoted and de-
personalised to a fertility idiom in the Hebrew Bible by the Deuteronomist, and moved to total silence
by the latest biblical writers.
Excursus 2: Israelite women and religion

As from the ninth century BC onwards, both Judeans and Northern Israelites venerated an array of
figurines, popularly known as Astartes.823 Evidence from archaeological finds indicate that the Israel-
ite cult made far more allowances in religious beliefs and practises than admitted by editors of the
Masoretic Text. In conformity with a male-dominated culture, the Hebrew Bible does not enlighten us
on the Israelite women's religious activities. Information acquired from ancient Mesopotamian texts
discloses a certain homogeneity – despite historical developments and geographical diversity – be-
tween the Mesopotamian and Israelite cultures. Therefore, a comparison could be drawn between the
and earth", which was used by both Canaanite Melchizedek and Abraham (Gn 14:19, 22) and which appears in
Phoenician inscriptions as an epithet of El.
815
Zevit 2001:646.
816
Zevit 2001:652.
817
Zevit 2001:587, 608, 646, 652-653.
818
Berlinerblau 1996:21, 31, 33, 44.
819
Examples are 2 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 3:2-3; 11:5-13; 15:5.
820
Berlinerblau 1996:44.
821
Miller 1986:239.
822
Hadley 1997:169, 171, 178.
823
Zevit 2001:268, 271.
179
Mesopotamian and Israelite women, particularly also regarding their cultic practices. Religion domi-
nated social life. Unfortunately, most available data on women were written from an "aristocratic
context". The household of the average daily-labourer or slave obviously would have been differ-
ent.824
Popular belief – which differs from folk religion – 'is a multicolored collection of convictions',825
which originated from official religious doctrine, fantasy and folklore. Folk religion basically con-
sisted of beliefs and intuitions, incorporated into religious experiences and teachings, as well as some
cultic rituals. Official religion – practised by the upper class – enjoyed prestige, and folk religion,
popularity. Although sorcery was punishable in both Israel and Mesopotamia, it was impossible to
eradicate the phenomenon. Both witchcraft and sorcery were applied by women to take revenge for
their social subordination. The art of divination826 was important within folk religion. In Mesopota-
mia this science flourished. Women, however, rarely practised it; a career as interpreter of signs
could hardly be combined with motherhood. In Israel, knowledge of the future rested in the priests
who made use of the Urim and Thummim.827 Regarding official religion, Israelite women were basi-
cally completely excluded from any means of communication with the divine world. 828 Women and the
underprivileged were, seemingly, never permitted to officiate at ceremonies or administer any ritu-
als.829 In folk religion the situation was, however, different. The spirituality of a woman was at times
powerful in the area of divination.830 Dreams provided insight into the counsel of the gods. Women
often had significant dreams – mainly symbolic image dreams – which could perhaps be ascribed to
them being more receptive. According to Mesopotamian sources, female prophets received their mes-
sages through direct divine inspiration. Mesopotamians often called these prophets "a mad person".
In Israel there were fewer female prophets than in Mesopotamia.831
Official Yahwism was characterised by a predominant male role 'in the establishment and mainte-
nance of the cult of this deity'.832 Berlinerblau833 assumes that the Hebrew Bible represents the views
of an "official Yahwism" which scholars often associate with an economically dominant class. It is,
however, difficult to take it for granted that Yahwism – as portrayed – in reality functioned as the "of-
ficial religion" of ancient Israel. Women who are generally categorised under the heading of "popu-
lar religion", never constituted a homogenous group. Although they might have shared common expe-
riences, they differed sociologically; some might have been economically disadvantaged and political-
ly powerless, while others were wives and mothers of prominent members of the "official religion".
There is, however, the possibility that the actions of clusters of Israelite women – such as residents of
a small village, or devotees of a particular deity – were motivated by the realisation that they were
grouped as the non-privileged.
824
825
826
Divination: see footnote in § 2.4.
827
See Urim and Thummim incorporated in a footnote in § 3.6.
828
Van der Toorn 1994:112-113,116,121-122.
829
Berlinerblau 1996:34-35.
830
A well-known example of female necromancy is found in 1 Samuel 28, when the Israelite king Saul visited
the female diviner from Endor.
831
Van der Toorn 1994:122, 126, 128-129, 131.
832
833
Berlinerblau 1996:167-169.
180
Meyers834 mentions that the Hebrew Bible is mainly the result of an unrepresentative, small segment of
the Israelite population. Priestly activity and editors played a significant role in the compilation of
the text. Consequently, 'the few fragments of information about women come from sources removed
both hierarchically and demographically from the lives of most women'. 835 As women were never in-
cluded in the priesthood, they were never part of the ruling elite. This exclusion – to a great extent –
of women as individuals or as groups from the Hebrew Bible could signify that the information it does
contain may be distorted or a misrepresentation of the lives of women removed from urban centres.
Berlinerblau836 speculates that women might have practised forms of cult different – in some ways –
from the male-centred "official Yahwism".
Carol Christ837 discusses the political and psychological significance of a goddess symbol among
women and the effect of male symbolism of God on women. Religions focused on the worship of a
male God create motivations 'that keep women in a state of psychological dependence on men and
male authority'.838 For women, the goddess is a divine female that could be invoked in prayer and
ritual; she is the symbol of life and death; she represents the legitimacy and beauty of female power;
she reflects the sacred power within women and nature – linking birth and death cycles. In a goddess-
centred ritual of magic and spell-casting, she personifies power and energy. Through the juxtaposi-
tion of Eve and Mary, patriarchal religion enforces the view that female initiative and will are evil.
Although Carol Christ concentrates on the idea of a "goddess symbol" for the modern woman, her
reasoning could very well have been applicable in the lives of the ancient Israelite women, particu-
larly considering the numerous female figurines that have been excavated in Israelite – and specifical-
ly Judean – context.
Zevit839 denotes that from the ninth century BC onwards the Israelites venerated at least one goddess
represented by an assortment of pillar figurines. These figurines, as well as plaques representing an-
imate beings, are of the most significant sources of information regarding the Israelite religion. They
were probably employed for prayer and ritual, and as a group, perceived as objects associated with
fertility. Being so popular, they most likely were implemented in the practice of private, individual
cults. Daviau840 mentions that particular artefacts841 provide confirmation of Iron Age religious activ-
ities. Unfortunately, artefacts concerning "domestic cult" are not well known. Those finds that do
appear in a domestic setting are 'evidence of religious activities practised by family members in the
home'.842 The pattern of official and domestic cult practices was not unique for Iron Age Israel and
Judah and could be compared with similar practices which were widespread in the Ancient Near East.
According to texts from the Hebrew Bible, as well as from Mesopotamian and Ugaritic literature, cul-
tic activities were assigned to the roof or an inner room.843
834
Meyers 1988:11-13.
835
Meyers 1988:12.
836
837
Christ 1979:274-275, 278, 282-283.
838
Christ 1979:275.
839
Zevit 2001:267, 271-273.
840
Daviau 2001:199-201.
841
Artefacts, such as ceramic figurines, fenestrated stands, chalices, rattles and four-horned altars excavated at a
temple or small shrine site (Daviau 2001:199).
842
Daviau 2001:199.
843
According to Jeremiah 19:13 'all the houses on whose roofs offerings have been offered to all the host of
heaven', and Jeremiah 32:29 'the houses on whose roofs offerings have been made to Baal and drink offerings
have been poured out to other gods'.
181
As discussed in paragraph 3.2, it is clear that Asherah – albeit the goddess herself, or her cult symbol
– was venerated by the majority of Israelites. If Christ's reasoning is valid, concerning the need of
women for a goddess symbol, Asherah would have been particularly favoured by Israelite women.
This scenario is attested in 2 Kings 23:7, referring to 'the women (who) wove hangings for Asherah'.
Similarly, it seems that the Israelite and Judean queen mothers had the official responsibility to dedi-
cate themselves to the cult of Asherah. 844 As indicated in paragraph 3.2.3, 'the prohibition and polem-
ics against Asherah and her cult symbol attest to their popularity in the cult of Yahweh in Iron Age
Israel'.845 The adoration in Judah of the Queen of Heaven – generally identified as Canaanite Astarte
– confirms her veneration by Judean women, who burned incense to her, poured out libations to her
and prepared cakes for her.846 Jeremiah attributes the catastrophe of the Exile to the veneration of the
Queen of Heaven, while the women in turn blame the disaster to their lack of offerings to the Queen of
Heaven.847 The cakes prepared for the goddess – and thus for her cult – was particularly associated
with women, and therefore probably involved the whole family. In the light of the loyalty of the wom-
en to the cult of the Queen of Heaven, Schmitz848 questions 'the marginal status of women in the Yah-
wistic cultus affirmed in the Law and Prophets of the Hebrew Bible'.
Phyllis Bird849 indicates that Wellhausen,850 in his analysis of the Israelite religion, emphasised the
masculine, martial and aristocratic nature of the Israelite religious assemblies, where only males had
rights and duties of membership. Other scholars argued that, as an original ancestral cult of the dead
could be sustained only by a male heir, it automatically excluded women from the cultic service. Some
scholars maintained that women were disinterested in the cult of Yahweh, but attracted to foreign
cults or pre-Yahwistic beliefs. Bird851argues that underlying these assumptions were the marginal or
subordinate status of women in the Israelite cultus. Early nomadic Israel was kinship-structured with
a basic patrilineal and patriarchal family. She suggests that biblical historians should determine – as
accurately as possible – the actual roles and activities of women in the Israelite religion. Unfortu-
nately, relevant information is – to a great extent – unavailable and unrecoverable. Seemingly, wom-
en were confined to maintenance and support roles in the cultic service; activities identified with
women are, for example, singers, dancers and attendants in the sanctuary. It is hardly possible to de-
termine the extent of participation as worshippers. Predominantly female forms of ritual and worship
referred to in the Hebrew Bible are the offerings to the Queen of Heaven 852 and the weeping for Tam-
muz.853
With reference to Bird's analysis, Miller854 mentions that, while cultic leadership – at all times – ap-
peared to be under male control, women were not completely excluded from cultic service or sacred
space. Admittedly, males occupied positions of authority and performed tasks requiring technical
844
This dedication is attested in 1 Kings 15:13 when the Judean king Asa removed the queen mother – his moth-
er Maacah – as 'she had made an abominable image for Asherah'.
845
Olyan 1988:74.
846
See Jeremiah 7:17-18; 44:15-24.
847
See also § 3.4.
848
Schmitz 1992:587.
849
Bird 1987:397.
850
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) was a German scholar who, together with Karl Graf, proposed the classic
pentateuchal Source Hypothesis (West 1981:64). See also § 8.2.
851
Bird 1987:397-399, 406, 408-409.
852
Jeremiah 7:17-18; 44:19.
853
Ezekiel 8:14. Tammuz was a deity of Mesopotamian origin who, according to Ezekiel, was introduced into
the Jerusalem Temple. Women wailed over the death of this god (Alster 1999:828).
854
Miller 2000b:202.
182
skills and training, particularly concerning the restriction of priestly functions to males. However,
apart from maintenance roles, women probably had additional responsibilities, such as weaving and
sewing of vestments, hangings and other materials for cultic use, as well as the preparation of cultic
meals for rituals, and cleaning duties.855 Dijkstra856 denotes that the Hebrew Bible mostly portrays
"women and worship" negatively. The 'religious life with its daily rites in domestic and local places of
worship was much more embedded in the social life of ordinary people, women included, than later
tradition would indicate'.857 As the biblical authors were proponents of a monotheistic movement, an
already patriarchal culture and religion were portrayed even more dominantly male. The participa-
tion of women in the official religion was downplayed and therefore complicates the assessment of
women's involvement in the religion and cultus of ancient Israel.
3.8 Divine attributes in the Masoretic Text

As indicated in discussions in previous paragraphs,858 it is, to a large extent, hardly possible to
distinguish the various Ancient Near Eastern deities from one another. The occurrence of
shifted boundaries and migrating peoples had the implication that deities, originally designat-
ed to a certain nation or a specific territory, appeared in various pantheons, albeit with differ-
ent, but often similar – or even the same – names. Consistent therewith, more than one attrib-
ute seems to have merged in particular deities. It is therefore – in many cases – not possible
to categorise each deity with a specific characteristic. The extent of contact between the dif-
ferent groups – which later integrated to become the Israelite nation – and the various neigh-
bouring peoples, had the result that all the attributes of the numerous Ancient Near Eastern
deities were later conferred upon the Hebrew God.
Lang859 indicates that 'the Hebrew God ranks as the most distinguished deity on record in
human history' … and that 'no other deity can boast a biography comparable to that of the He-
brew God'. In his book,860 The Hebrew God: portrait of an ancient deity, Lang861 indicates
that he endeavoured to present a 'comprehensive and convincing account of the Hebrew God,
… that sums up and completes previous research'. He appropriates research done by Georges
Dumézil862 to classify the portrayals of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. Dumézil developed the
"trifunctional theory", according to which a 'tripartite system underlies both the divine world
and human society'. 863 According to Dumézil, deities may be categorised in "sovereignty and
855
For a discussion of the inclusion of women in cultic activities, see Miller (2000b:201-207).
856
Dijkstra 2001c:164-165, 188.
857
Dijkstra 2001c:165.
858
In this regard, § 3.2.1, § 3.3, § 3.4, § 3.5 and § 3.6 in particular, are relevant.
859
Lang 2002:vii.
860
Lang 2002: see bibliography in this thesis for details.
861
Lang 2002:vii-viii.
862
A scholar renowned in the history of religions.
863
Lang 2002:4.
183
the sacred", "physical power and the military", "fertility", thus corresponding to the three
basic human social classes, namely 'wisdom, war, and wealth'. 864 Lang's865 analysis is divided
into five sections, "Lord of Wisdom", "Lord of War", "Lord of the Animals", "Lord of the In-
dividual – the Personal God" and "Lord of the Harvest".
It is not the focus of this thesis to deliberate extensively on the various attributes of the
Hebrew God and consequently these attributes are pointed out only summarily hereafter. As
my study entails a research on the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism, which – according to my
hypothesis – may have developed from earlier forms of a Ya- or even a type of Yahweh-
veneration, it is necessary that I am knowledgeable about the attributes of the Ancient Near
Eastern deities and the possible influence thereof to characterise the Hebrew God. Various
features ascribed to the Israelite God could be associated with particular Ancient Near Eastern
deities.
As discussed later in Chapter 5, two main hypotheses on the origin of Yahwism have been
developed by scholars during the past number of decades. One of these theories debates the
adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh. I have therefore, in the following two paragraphs, 866
summarised attributes that were conferred mainly on either Yahweh or on El/Elohim. In pre-
vious paragraphs in this chapter – as mentioned earlier in a footnote – the main characteristics
of deities have been discussed to a certain extent. I have also indicated to what degree these
attributes were associated with Yahweh. Numerous text references from the Hebrew Bible
have been incorporated in the aforementioned discussions. In the following summaries only a
number of text references are included. I have also taken note of Lang's research in this re-
gard.867
The different words, or terms, applied in the Hebrew literature that lead to the identification of
a particular characteristic of the Deity, are denoted separately, but grouped together. The oc-
currence of particular attributes, connected with either Yahweh or El/Elohim, is pointed out in
paragraph 3.8.3, thereby indicating specific characteristics associated with the Deity.
For practical purposes, abbreviated forms of the various books in the Hebrew Bible are ap-
plied in the following two paragraphs; see paragraph 1.6 for the relevant abbreviations.
864
Lang 2002:4-5.
865
Lang 2002:v-vi.
866
§ 3.8.1 and § 3.8.2.
867
Lang's research, as presented in his book The Hebrew God: portrait of an ancient deity.
184
3.8.1 Summary of attributes ascribed to Yahweh
Storm God: relevant terminology
Storm clouds; cloud(s) [chariots indicated under Warrior God]: Ex 13:21-22; 14:19-20, 24;
16:10; 19:9, 16; 24:15-16, 18; 33:9-10; 34:5; 40:34-35, 38; Lv 16:2; Nm 9:16-22; 10:34;
11:25; 12:5; 14:14; Dt 5:22; 31:15; 1 Ki 8:10-11; 2 Chr 5:13-14; Neh 9:12; Ps 18:11-12; 97:2;
99:7; 104:3; 108:4; 135:7; 147:8; Is 4:5; 5:6; 19:1; Lm 2:1; Ezk 10:4; 30:3; Nah 1:3; Zch
10:1.
Wind; whirlwind; storm; tempest: 2 Ki 2:1; Job 38:1; 40:6; Ps 11:6; 18:10; 104:4; 107:25,
29; 135:7; 147:18; 148:8; Is 11:15; 28:2; 29:6; 30:30; Jr 11:16; 23:19; 30:23; Ezk 13:13;
Am 1:14; Jnh 1:4, 13-14; Nah 1:3.
Thunder; lightning(s); hail; hailstones: Ex 9:18, 23-24, 28-29, 33; 19:16; Jos 10:11; 1 Sm
2:10; 7:10; 12:17-18; 2 Sm 22:14-15; Job 38:22, 25, 35; 40:9; Ps 18:12-13; 29:3; 93:4; 97:4;
104:7; 135:7; 144:6; 148:8; Is 28:2; 29:6; 30:30; Ezk 13:13.
Water(s); sea; waves; river; rain; flood; mist; snow: Ex 9:33; 1 Sm 12:17-18; Job 38:22,25;
Ps 29:3,10; 33:7; 88:7; 89:9; 93:4; 104:13; 105:29; 107:25, 29, 33, 35; 147:8, 16, 18; 148:4,
8; Is 28:2; 40:12; Ez 13:13; Zch 10:1.
Earthquake; earth trembled; mountains smoke, melt: Ex 19:18; Jdg 5:4; 1 Ki 19:11; Ps 97:4-
5; 99:1; 104:32; 144:5; Is 2:21; 13:13; 29:6; Jr 51:29; Jl 3:16; Hab 3:6.
Coal; fire; sulphur; smoke: Gn 19:24; Ex 9:24; 13:21-22; 4:24; 40:38; Nm 14:14; Dt 4:11;
5:22; 1 Chr 21:26; 2 Chr 7:1, 3; Neh 9:12, 19; Ps 11:6; 18:8, 12-13; 21:9; 29:7; 79:5; 89:46;
97:3; 104:4, 32; 148:8; Is 4:5; 29:6; 30:30; 66:15-16; Jr 11:16; Lm 4:11; Ezk 15:7; 30:8; 39:6;
Zch 2:5.
Roar (like a lion): Hs 11:10; Jl 3:16.
Broke the sea monsters: Ps 89:10; 104:26; Is 27:1.
Wings: Ps 17:8; 91:4; 104:3.
Warrior God: relevant terminology

Shield; buckler (small round shield); sword; spear; javelin: Lv 26:25; Nm 22:23; Dt 32:41-
42; Job 39:23; Ps 3:3; 17:13; 18:2, 30, 35; 28:7; 35:2, 3; 46:9; 59:11; 84:11; 89:18; 91:4;
115:9-11; 119:114; 144:2; Is 27:1; 34:5-6; 66:16; Jr 46:10; Ezk 6:3; 21:3-5; 30:25; Am 9:1.
Bow; arrows: Dt 32:42; 2 Sm 22:15; 2 Ki 13:17; Ps 21:12; 38:2; 46:9; 144:6; Zch 9:13-14.
Chariots; horses: 2 Ki 6:17; Ps 18:10; 68:4, 33; 104:3; Is 19:1; 66:15; Jr 4:13; Hab 3:8.
Trumpet; banner; horn: Ex 17:15; 19:16; 2 Sm 22:3; Ps 18:2; 47:5; 89:17; 112:9; Zch 9:14.
185
Stronghold; fortress; tower; rock; mountain; guard: Dt 32:4; 2 Sm 22:2-3; Ps 9:9; 12:7; 18:2,
31, 46; 19:14; 28:1; 31:2-3; 37:39; 71:3; 89:26; 91:2, 11; 92:15; 94:22; 95:1; 125:2; 142:5;
144:1-2.
Battle; wars; struck down / killed foes, nations; pestilence: Ex 15:3; 17:16; Lv 26:25; Nm
21:14; 1 Chr 21:14; Ps 24:8; 46:9; 89:23; 135:10; 136:15, 17-18, 24; 144:1; Hab 3:5.
Solar God: relevant terminology

Established heavenly lights (sun, moon, stars): Ps 89:37; 104:19; 118:27; 136:7, 8, 9; 147:4;
Is 45:7; Jr 31:35; Am 5:8.
Lord God is a sun/moon: Ps 84:11; Is 24:23.
Sun, moon, stars praise the Lord: Ps 148:3.
Light; shine (face): Ex 13:21; 2 Sm 22:29; Job 38:24; Ps 4:6; 18:28; 27:1; 80:19; 89:15; 90:8;
104:2; 118:27; 119:105, 130, 135; Is 2:5; 60:1, 19-20; Da 2:22; Mi 7:8; Hab 3:4.
Sun stood still; sent darkness, shade; prevent sun/moon to strike you: Jos 10:12; Ps 105:28;
121:5-6; Is 45:7; Ezk 32:7.
Creator God: relevant terminology

Creator: 1 Chr 16:26; Neh 9:6; Ps 8; 89:11-12; 95:4-6; 96:5; 104:19-20; 119:90; 124:8;
134:3; 136:5-7; 146:6; 148:5; Is 40:28; 43:1, 15; 64:8.
Heavens made by a word: Ps 33:6; 147:4.
Shepherd: relevant terminology

Shepherd; rod/staff; flock; sheep: Ps 23:1, 4; 28:9; 79:13; 95:7; 100:3; 107:41; Jr 31:10; Ezk
34:12.
King: relevant terminology

The Lord, Most High; Mighty One: Ps 7:17; 9:2; 21:7; 47:2; 83:18; 91:9; 92:1; 132:2, 5.
King; throne; enthroned; sceptre: 2 Chr 18:18; Ps 10:16; 29:10; 47:2; 48:2; 84:3; 93:2; 95:3;
99:1; 102:12; 103:19; 110:2; 113:5; Is 6:1; 33:22; 43:15; 66:1; Zch 14:9.
Kingdom; rules; reigns; world belongs to: Ps 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1; 103:19; 145:11-13;
146:10.
Temple; Zion; musical instruments; sing: Ps 30; 33:2-3.
186
Lord of hosts: relevant terminology
Lord, God of hosts: Ps 59:5; 69:6; 80:4; 84:8; 89:8; Is 3:1, 15; 10:16, 23-24, 33; 19:4;
22:5, 12, 14-15; 28:22; Jr 2:19; 46:10; Am 9:5.
Lord of lords, Lord exalted above the gods: Ps 97:9; 136:3.
Lord of hosts: Ps 24:10; 46:7, 11; 84:1, 3, 12; Is 1:9, 24; 2:12; 5:7, 9, 16, 24; 6:3, 5; 8:13, 18;
10:26; 13:4, 13; 14:22-24, 27; 17:3; 18:7; 19:12, 16-18, 20, 25; 21:10; 22:14, 25; 23:9; 24:23;
25:6; 28:5, 29; 29:6; 31:4-5; 37:16, 32; 39:5; 44:6; 45:13; 47:4; 48:2; 51:15; 54:5; Jr 6:6, 9;
31:35; 50:34; Mi 4:4; Nah 2:13; 3:5; Hab 2:13; Zph 2:9-10; Hg 1:2, 5, 7, 9, 14; 2:4, 6-9, 11,
23 ; Zch 1:3-4, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17; Ml 1:4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-14; 4:1, 3.
Judge: relevant terminology

Judge; wrath: Dt 32:41; 1 Sm 2:10; Ps 7:8; 9:4, 8,16; 36:6; 78:21; 94:2; 96:10, 13; 97:6; 98:9;
105:5, 7; 110:6; Is 33:22; Jr 11:20.
Justice; righteousness: Ps 5:6; 7:17; 9:4, 8; 11:7; 31:1; 33:5; 35:24, 28; 36:6, 10; 88:12;
89:14, 16; 96:13; 97:2; 98:2,9; 99:4; 103:6, 17; 112:3, 9; 116:5; 119:40, 62, 75, 106, 137, 138,
142, 144, 160, 164; 129:4; 143:1, 11; 145:7, 17.
Law; courts; divine council: Ps 78:5; 84:2; 89:7; 119:62, 75, 106, 160, 164; Is 33:22.
Redeemer: relevant terminology

Redeemer; heals; answers; salvation; listens; anoints with oil; foundation: Ps 19:14; 20:1;
23:5; 66:18; 68:26; 55:16; 98:2; 103:3; Is 44:24; 47:4; 63:16; Jr 50:34.
Father: relevant terminology

Father: Dt 32:6; 1 Chr 29:10; Ps 103:13; Pr 3:2; Is 63:16; 64:8; Ml 1:6.
3.8.2 Summary of attributes ascribed to El/Elohim

Storm God: relevant terminology
Storm clouds; cloud(s): Ex 14:19; Job 22:14; 26:8-9; 36:29; 37:11, 15; Ps 78:14.
Wind; whirlwind; storm; tempest; hurricane: Job 30:22; Ps 50:3; 78:26; 83:15.
Lightning; thunder: Ex 19:19; 20:18; Job 26:14; 28:26; 36:29-30, 32; 37:2, 3-5, 11, 15; 40:9;
Ps 78:48; 81:7.
Water; sea; river; rain; flood; springs; rocks split open: Job 28:26; Ps 65:7, 9; 74:15; 78:13,
15, 20, 44; 114:8.
Fire; smoke: Ex 20:18; Ps 50:3; 78:63.
Broke the sea monsters: Ps 74:13-14.
187
Wings: Ps 36:7; 57:1; 63:7.
Warrior God: relevant terminology

Shield; sword; weapons of war: Ps 7:12-13; 47:9; 76:3.
Bow; arrows: Ps 7:12-13; 60:4; 64:7; 76:3.
Helmet; trumpet; banner: Ex 19:19; Ps 60:4, 7.
Chariots; horses: Dt 33:26; Ps 68:17.
Stronghold; fortress; tower; rock; mountain; guard: Ex 3:1; 2 Sm 23:3; Ps 42:9; 46:7, 11;
48:3; 59:16-17; 61:2-3; 62:2, 6-7; 78:35; 141:8.
Battle; wars; army; march; captives: 1 Chr 5:22; 12:22; 14:15; Neh 4:20; Ps 68:7, 18.
Solar God: relevant terminology

Established heavenly lights: Gn 1:3, 14; Ps 76:16.
Light; shine (face); tent for the sun: Job 29:3; Ps 19:4; 36:9; 43:3; 44:3; 50:2; 67:1; 80:3.
Creator God: relevant terminology

Creator; established mountains: Gn 1; 2:3; 27:28; Dt 4:32; Job 35:10; Ps 65:6; 68:15; 78:54.
Heavens made by a word: Ps 74:16.
Shepherd: relevant terminology

Shepherd; flock; sheep: Gn 48:15; Ps 68:10; 78:52; 80:1.
King: relevant terminology

King; throne; enthroned; sceptre; kingdom; rules; Zion: Ps 43:4; 44:4; 45:6; 47:6; 50:10-12;
59:13; 65:1; 68:24; 145:1.
God Most High: Ps 46:4; 50:14; 57:2; 73:11; 78:35; 107:11.
Judge: relevant terminology

Judge: Job 21:22; Ps 7:11; 50:4, 6; 58:11; 67:4; 75:7; 76:8-9; 82:1, 8.
Justice; righteousness: Dt 32:4; Ps 7:11; 48:10; 50:6; 58:11.
Divine council; law: Ps 37:31; 40:8; 82:1.
Redeemer: relevant terminology

Redeemer; salvation; fountain of life; protects; helper; trust; listen: Lv 26:12; Ps 20:1; 36:9;
50:23; 51:14; 54:1, 4; 56:11; 66:19; 78:35; 79:9; 85:4.
188
Father: relevant terminology
Father: Ps 68:5; Is 9:6; Ml 2:10.
3.8.3 Inference from summaries of attributes; some other characteristics

Although not all the relevant texts in the Hebrew Bible have been appropriated for the sum-
maries in the previous two paragraphs, 868 the particular texts in these paragraphs give an ac-
ceptable indication of the main characteristics associated with either Yahweh or Elohim.
It is clear that the attributes of the major Ancient Near Eastern deities – storm god, warrior
god and solar god – have all been conferred on Yahweh, and that he was thus perceived as
Storm, Warrior and Solar God. In this regard there is a resemblance to the Assyrian warrior
god Aššur,869 also identified as storm god and solar god. At the same time Aššur was consid-
ered a fertility god and creator who ordained man's fate.870 Both Yahweh and Elohim are por-
trayed in the Hebrew Bible as "Creator", as well as "Father"; these two epithets also appear as
descriptions of the Canaanite El in the Ugaritic texts.871 Day872 mentions that the Ugaritic
Ba‛al cycle contains three main sections,873 of which all three have 'left echoes in the pages of
the Old Testament [which] has appropriated storm theophany language from Baal'. Various
North-West Semitic descriptions emphasise either Ba‛al's "storm theophany", or his role as
warrior god. Biblical material downgrades deities – other than the Israelite God – reserving
power over the storm and the designation "Divine Warrior" for Yahweh. 874 Psalms 29, 89 and
93 are examples of the portrayal of Yahweh as Warrior and Storm Deity, and in Psalm 77:16-
20 Elohim (God) is also depicted as such. Psalm 113 designates Yahweh as Solar God, while
Psalm 104 characterises him as both Solar and Storm Deity.
Although the Canaanite deity Anat875 is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, her "savage
fighting" – as described in the Ugaritic Ba‛al cycle876 – has often been compared with several
biblical passages. 877 Smith878 has drawn a comparison between Yahweh and Anat in these
868
§ 3.8.1 and § 3.8.2.
869
See § 3.5 for a discussion of Aššur.
870
Guirand 1996:57.
871
Handy 1994:77-78.
872
Day 2000:91.
873
In the Ugaritic Ba‛al cycle (KTU 2 1.1-6) there are three main sections: the conflict between Ba‛al and Yam;
Ba‛al who has become king builds a "house" (temple/palace) on Mount Zaphon; Ba‛al's conflict with Mot, the
god of the Underworld (Day 2000:91). For more information, see discussion in § 3.5.
874
Smith 1990:49, 61.
875
See § 3.3 regarding Anat.
876
CTA 3.2.3-30; KTU 1.3 II.
877
See, for example, a footnote in § 3.3 where the "bloodbath" text of Anat is compared with Psalm 23.
878
See Smith (1990:61-64), for a discussion of two of these parallel passages.
189
passages. However, 'since Anat is not attested in the Bible excepting in a few personal
names, the lack of contact between her cult and that of Yahweh forestalls any theory of direct
dependence'.879 The common language may have been derived from a third source. As men-
tioned earlier, Lang 880 indicates that the king was often represented as the human war leader
of the deity. As the Deity of the State, Yahweh had the responsibility to secure royal victory
in battle. During the royal enthronement a special weapon – the warrior deity's weapon – was
handed over to the new king. 881 Divine warfare terminology was inherited by the Israelites
from its neighbours. War legends 'are particularly characteristic of traditions relating to the
exodus from Egypt and the conquest of the promised land'. 882 Apart from human battles, the
Divine Warrior – notably Yahweh, also in his capacity as Storm God – wages a successful
battle against beings which represent chaos. Celestial beings – who formed Yahweh's entou-
rage and fought his battles – signified the "hosts" in his title "Lord of Hosts". Biblical texts
cite overwhelming references to Yahweh as "Lord of Hosts".
From the summarised epithets, both Yahweh and Elohim are indicated as Shepherd, King and
Redeemer. Regarding the particular texts that have been evaluated, those concerning judge-
ment, justice and righteousness refer to a greater extent to Yahweh than to Elohim. In the eyes
of the Israelite scribes the Hebrew God was a "wise administrator and legislator". 883 In his
discussion of the Book of Joel, Crenshaw 884 mentions that 'the struggle between those who
emphasized divine compassion and others who stressed YHWH's justice has left its trail in the
Bible, demonstrating both the tenacity of tradition and the versatility of its transmitters'. Tra-
ditional motifs based on ancient theophanies – "the day of Yahweh ", "the enemy from the
north", "the sacred mountain" – are applied by the prophet. He furthermore attributes the con-
trol of rain, and therefore nature's yield, to Yahweh. 'This mastery of history and nature [thus]
entitled YHWH to the claim of uniqueness.'885
Mythology and ritual acquired from a polytheistic worldview can be reconstructed provision-
ally from scattered biblical traditions and texts. Ancient Syrian mythology can be recognised
in the tradition of a wise creator deity – at times called Yahweh – but whose original name
seems to have been Ugaritic El or Elohim. Lang886 mentions that Hokhmah – patroness of the
879
Smith 1990:63.
880
Lang 2002:47, 49, 55, 57.
881
Compare Psalm 110:2; Yahweh sends his mighty sceptre.
882
Lang 2002:49.
883
Lang 2002:36.
884
Crenshaw 1995:193-194.
885
Crenshaw 1995:196.
886
Lang 2002:24-26.
190
scribes and administrators – is a figure also involved in the wisdom tradition. He points out
that translations in the Hebrew Bible refer to her as "Wisdom" and that relevant evidence for
the wise God and wisdom goddess is found in the Book of Proverbs. 887 Day, 888 however, dis-
counts such a suggestion, indicating that 'there is not a scrap of evidence that any such god-
dess ever existed'. Smith,889 on the other hand, proposes that the Canaanite goddess Asherah
may be a candidate for the female figure of Wisdom. Lang, 890 furthermore, poses the ques-
tion why the Yahweh-alone editors did not discard Proverbs 1-9 altogether in the redaction
process. This text – as a so-called "school text"891 – remained a widely known piece of litera-
ture for many centuries. It even reverberates in a number of early Jewish writings. Ben Si-
ra892 maintains that the voice of Wisdom is heard when the Law is read in the synagogue.
Hadley893 denotes that, according to Proverbs 8:22-31, Lady Wisdom declares that 'The
LORD [Yahweh] possessed me at the beginning of his work …', and that she was therefore
the first of all Yahweh's creations. Some scholars suggest that Wisdom existed independently
of Yahweh. In the Book of Proverbs particular reference is made to the "knowledge" and
"wisdom" received from Yahweh.894 'The fear of the Lord has a paradigmatic role in connec-
tion with wisdom.'895 The fear of a deity is also found in the Babylonian wisdom literature
and in later Egyptian compositions.896
The Hebrew Bible occasionally applies a female metaphor to describe Yahweh or Yahweh's
actions.897 The attestation of female images is an indication that Yahweh 'both encompasses
the characteristics and values expressed through gendered metaphors and transcends the cate-
gories of sexuality'. 898 Attributing female roles and metaphors to "male" deities was not an
unknown concept in the Ancient Near East, but did not imply a female status for the god.899
887
See particularly Proverbs, chapters 1-9.
888
Day 1995:69.
889
Smith 1990:94-95.
890
Lang 1999:903.
891
Christians, from late antiquity up to the Middle Ages, never created their own curriculum for schools, but
learned to read and write by utilising pagan literature, such as the poetry of Homer or Virgil. Proverbs 1-9 was
similarly employed as a "school text" (Lang 1999:903).
892
Ben Sira, or Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira, a professional scribe – thereby implying a wise man or sage –
wrote during the early second century BC in Jerusalem his Wisdom; also known as The Wisdom of Ben Sira, or
The Book of Sirach. It is one of the earliest, and certainly the longest of the deuterocanonical or apocryphal
books of the Old Testament. The book contains, inter alia, moral, cultic and ethical sayings, theological and
philosophical reflections, and observations about life and customs (Di Lella 1992:931-932).
893
Hadley 1995:236.
894
See, for example, Proverbs 2:5-6.
895
Day 1995:66. See Proverbs 1:7.
896
Day 1995:67.
897
Compare, for example, Isaiah 42:14; 46:3; 49:15.
898
Smith 1990:99.
899
Examples are: Athtar is mother, ‛ttr’um; Shamash is my mother, ummi-šamaš; lord is mother, a-da-nu-um-mu
(Smith 1990:99).
191
The same applied for a goddess. There is, to a certain degree, the lack of gender language for
Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible, which could be attributed to the avoidance of anthropomorphic
imagery for Yahweh. This tendency is found mainly in the priestly and deuteronomistic tradi-
tions. Yahweh was portrayed as a male God without a consort. Israelite society also per-
ceived Yahweh 'as embodying traits or values expressed by various gendered metaphors and
as transcending such particular renderings'. 900
According to Stone,901 archaeological research confirms that a goddess – "Mistress of Heav-

en", the "Creatress" – was venerated at the very beginnings of religion, and it therefore signi-
fies that 'God was a woman'. Later biblical idol worshippers of the Ancient Near Eastern
Queen of Heaven thus, likewise, venerated a 'woman God'. However, to speak of God, or ad-
dress God, 'is among the most difficult and audacious things that humans do'. 902 The designa-
tion "He", found in positive attributes of God, does not actually disclose anything about God;
masculine imagery and pronouns are merely linguistic devices. The exclusively male God
language in reality reveals much about a particular society and religion. Jewish religion in-
volves talking to God, and not about God, and therefore female God language especially is
important.903 Pagels904 mentions that the absence of feminine symbolism of God in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, is in contrast to other religious traditions. In the actual language of
worship God is addressed in exclusively masculine terms. Patriarchal traditions of Israel –
wherein social and cultural forces suppressed women's participation and feminine symbolism
– were later adopted by Roman and Christian communities.
The concept of androgyny905 is unexpected in the Hebrew Bible, yet in Job 38 906 Yahweh con-
fronts Job with a rhetorical question:
'Has the rain a father,
or who has begotten the drops of dew?
From whose womb did the ice come forth
and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?'
Although it cannot be attested that Job is a monotheistic composition, it is unlikely that this
900
Smith 1990:99-103.
901
Stone 1979:120, 123-124.
902
Gross 1979:169.
903
Gross 1979:170-172.
904
Pagels 1979:107, 117.
905
For a description, see "androgynous" and "hermaphrodite" incorporated in a footnote in § 3.2.1.
906
Job 38:28-29.
192
passage refers to two parents.907 Wyatt908 presumes that in Job it is the same deity Yahweh –
identified with El Shadday, or El; the latter who appears in the bulk of the poem – who acts in
both paternal and maternal roles in the formation of the natural world. The language is meta-
phorical and is in accordance with idioms in other Ancient Near Eastern religions. In the said
passage the Deity is represented as androgynous. Implicit references to androgyny are found
in Isaiah,909 and particularly in Genesis 1:27:
'So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him,
male and female he created them.'
Akkadian ilānū – the gods – is 'an exact parallel to the Hebrew ’ělōhîm', 910 attested in Late
Bronze Age cuneiform documents. 911 Preference for the usage of ilānū (plural) over ilu (sin-
gular) spread from the Mediterranean coastal plain, into the valleys, and finally to the Pales-
tinian highlands. Consequently, the Late Bronze Age usage of ilānū ultimately resulted in
Hebrew (biblical) ’ělōhîm. Singular ilu reflects a Canaanite usage and probably originated
from Egyptian court language. A number of first millennium parallels to biblical ’ělōhîm
have been attested in epigraphic material. 912 The Akkadian ilānū, counterpart of ’ělōhîm, is
probably 'the result of linguistic borrowing from the west, ultimately from the Canaanite
group of Northwest Semitic languages'. 913 Biblical ’ělōhîm – in its distinct significance as a
divine title – and both ’ēl and ’ělōah, refer to a god in a general sense, gods of other peoples,
or to a divine image. ’Ělōhîm is used in many of the same phrases as ’ēl and ’ělōah.914 ’Ělō-
hîm is essentially an abstract noun occurring in various construct expressions. The abstract
character thereof gives it more flexibility than the terms ’ēl and ’ělōah. ’Ělōhîm is a known
designation for Israel's God.915 In the book of Job the name Yahweh appears in chapters 1, 2,
38, 40 and 42, while there are numerous applications of the title ’ēl, less of ’ělōhîm and a few
907
Wyatt 2005:248-249.
908
Wyatt 2005:249-250.
909
Isaiah 42:14; 49:15; 66:12-13.
910
Burnett 2001:7-8.
911
Documents from Amarna, Qatna, Taanach and Ugarit. The use of ilānū in the Amarna Letters in Canaanite
vassal correspondence, was recognised as a parallel to biblical ’ělōhîm (Burnett 2001:7-8).
912
For a discussion of some of these parallels, see Burnett (2001:24-53).
913
Burnett 2001:53.
914
Examples are: larXy yhla (Jos 22:24) and larXy la (Ps 68:36); yx ~yhla (2 Ki 19:4) and yx la
(Jos 3:10); al ~yhla hla (Dt 32:17), la alb (Dt 32:21) and ~yhla alw (Hs 8:6) (Burnett 2001:55-56).
915
Burnett 2001:14-15, 25, 53-58, 60.
193
references to Shadday (ydX). A significant feature of the book is the appropriation of the des-
ignation ’ělōah which appears at least once in most chapters.916
The Hebrew word ’ělōah is derived from ’ilāh-, which could be a secondary form of the Se-
mitic word ’il-. Elohim – as the Jewish designation of God – represents an expansion of
Eloah. As a theophoric element, and as an appellative, Eloah is absent from both Ugaritic
and biblical personal names. It does, however, appear in Arabian and Aramaic names. While
the name Eloah is relatively unimportant, Elohim, which is a prominent name in the Hebrew
Bible, is also absent in proper names. In comparison with the plural form Elohim, the number
of occurrences of Eloah in the Hebrew Bible is considerably lower. The appellative function
of Eloah is apparent in several passages. 917 Pardee918 is of the opinion that its role in Habak-
kuk 3:3 is debatable. He argues that in the context of Habakkuk 3 – 'Eloah has come from
Teman, Qadosh [the Holy One] from Mount Paran' – the phrase is obviously monotheistic and
refers to Yahweh. It is, however, not clear whether 'God / (the) Holy One' or 'a god / a holy
one' is a parallelism, or whether the expression applies a common noun as an epithet of Yah-
weh, or employs a divine name equivalent to Yahweh.
In their concept of God the Israelites ascribed an anthropomorphic nature to God: he possess-
es hands, ears, eyes, fingers, feet, a mouth and other bodily parts; God is also capable of feel-
ings resembling those of humans. 'An anthropomorphic vision of God underlies many of Is-
rael's religious institutions.'919 Some texts in the Hebrew Bible, however, 'stress the differ-
ence between God's divinity and man's humanity'. 920 On account of his heavenly nature, God
transcends humans; the concept of his invisibility is linked to his celestial being. As an adjec-
tive, Elohim occurs as a term for "the spirits of the dead". The apparition or spirit of Samuel
is described as "’ělōhîm coming up from the earth".921 As there is no clear division between
human and divine in the Ancient Near East, the word ’ělōhîm can be used in the sense of "di-
vine" or "exceptional". 922
916
Examples of the designation hwla in the book of Job, are the following: Job 3:4, 23; 4:9; 5:17; 6:4, 8; 10:2;
11:7; 12:4, 6; 15:8; 16:20, 21; 19:6, 21, 26; 21:9, 18; 22:12, 26; 27:3, 8, 10; 28:23; 29:2, 4; 31:6; 33:12, 26;
35:10; 36:2; 37:15; 39:17; 40:2.
917
In an appellative function hwla or hla appears in: Deuteronomy 32:15, 17; 2 Samuel 22:32; 2 Chronicles
32:15; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalms 18:32; 114:7; Isaiah 44:8; Daniel 11:37-39; Habakkuk 1:11 (Pardee 1999:287).
918
Pardee 1999:287.
919
Van der Toorn 1999b:361-362.
920
Van der Toorn 1999b:362. An example of such a text is, Numbers 23:19, 'God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.'
921
1 Samuel 28:13.
922
Van der Toorn 1999b:361-364. For a discussion of deified ancestors, ancestral spirits and Yahweh-El, an
ancestral God, see § 5.7.
194
In Northern Israel the term ’ělōhîm had a special significance in their national cultus. Jerobo-
am I923 made two golden calves – bull statues – which represented the Deity and which he set
up in the sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel. 924 In a worship credo, ’ělōhîm is associated with the-
se bull statues: 'Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.' 925
The concept of a plurality of gods – ’ělōhîm – is not foreign to the exodus tradition and traces
thereof are found throughout this book. Furthermore, an apparent link between the ark and
the exodus formula, 926 merits consideration. In 1 Samuel 4:8 the Philistines – with reference
to the ark – mention the gods, ~yhla, who struck the Egyptians with various plagues. 927
Burnett928 maintains that 'the ’ělōhîm cult-formula cited in Exod 32:4, 8; 1 Sam 4:8; and 1
Kgs 12:28 was a well established religious tradition of common-Israelite heritage, which had
been featured in the central worship of premonarchic Israel'. This exclusive role of ’ělōhîm
suggests that the term had a particular status as divine designation among the northern Israel-
ites; a status which became authoritative in their national cultus. Plural ’ělōhîm originally de-
noted Yahweh and his divine entourage. With Jeroboam's appropriation of the "worship-
formula" the prominence of ’ělōhîm as a title for Israel's God, was reinforced. 929
Scholars noted apparent differences in the use of Yahweh or Elohim in the Psalter. Numerous
appearances of the Tetragrammaton in the so-called Elohistic Psalter 930 cannot be overlooked,
although the virtually exclusive appearance of Elohim is found in these psalms – Psalms 42-
83. An analysis of the three groups of psalms 931 in the Elohistic Psalter indicates a distribu-
tion of Yahweh among all three groups. Simplistic theories by scholars – such as, the redac-
tional insertion of Yahweh; superficial editing by Elohistic redactors who overlooked instanc-
es of Yahweh; 'or the substitution of the generic term Elohim for the original proper name
YHWH with occasional re-infiltration of the proper name'932 – should be avoided. The Elo-
histic inclination should also be separated from a fear to pronounce the Tetragrammaton –
923
Jeroboam I was the first king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel; 931/930- 910/909 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell
1982:196).
924
1 Kings 12:28-30.
925
1 Kings 12:28. This liturgical formula is associated with the bull [calf] image in the account of Aaron's rebel-
lion in Sinai, when he declared : 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt'
(Ex 32:4) (Burnett 2001:80).
926
See previous footnote regarding the liturgical formula associated with the bull image in Sinai.
927
Burnett 2001:79-80, 86, 92.
928
Burnett 2001:105.
929
Burnett 2001:105, 119.
930
The so-called Elohistic Psalms; Psalms 42-83.
931
The three groups are: first collection of Korahite Psalms (Psalms 42-49); second Davidic Psalter (Psalms 51-
72); Asaph Psalms (Psalms 50, 73-83) (Hossfeld & Zenger 2003:50). For a discussion of the appearance of Elo-
him and Yahweh in these groups, see Hossfeld & Zenger (2003:42-50).
932
Hossfeld & Zenger 2003:50.
195
an observance which only began later.933 Hossfeld and Zenger 934 are of the opinion that the
'purposefully-used name for God, YHWH, is not indicative of a secondary redaction, but an
expression of theological thinking that typically reveals itself only as a theological tendency
in these texts'.
Further characteristics of Yahweh and/or Elohim in the Hebrew Bible are, for example, eterni-
ty (Habakkuk 1:12); immortality (Psalm 90:2); omnipotence (Job 24:1); omnipresence (Psalm
139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:23-24); omniscience (1 Chronicles 28:9; Isaiah 42:8-9); immutability
(Malachi 3:6); holiness (Psalms 47:8; 99:3, 5); grace and mercy (Psalm 136); longsuffering
(Exodus 34:6) and faithfulness (Psalm 36:5).
The appearance of the name Yahweh, Yahweh Elohim, or Elohim, in the Hebrew Bible de-
pends on a particular tradition and, in some instances, possibly on the preference of the redac-
tor. Despite the declaration in Exodus 6:3, '… but by my name the LORD [Yahweh] I did not
make myself known to them' [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob], the name Yahweh or Yahweh Elo-
him appears close to two hundred times in Genesis. 935 Smith936 mentions that, with regard to
Genesis, the name Yahweh could have been substituted by another term for God, without af-
fecting the substance of the particular passage. Different titles were used when God revealed
himself to the patriarchs,937 yet, 'God has many titles, but only one name, LORD (YHWH)'.938
It is clear, from deliberations in this and some previous paragraphs, 939 that Yahweh is an infi-
nite-dimensional God, into whom all the attributes of the Ancient Near Eastern deities are in-
tegrated.
3.9 Influence of myths and legends on the Masoretic Text

The focus point of my research in this thesis is on the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism – the
latter which eventually culminated in monotheism. Both Yahweh and the Yahwistic religion
of the Israelites form an integral part of the Hebrew Bible, which includes legendary and
mythical matter. It is conceivable that myths and legends of Israel's neighbours had an
933
Hossfeld & Zenger 2003:35-36, 42-51.
934
935
The name Yahweh does not appear in the narrative of Joseph from the time he had contact in the prison with
the cupbearer and baker of the pharaoh (Gn 40:1-48:22) (Smith 1968:105).
936
Smith 1968:105.
937
Titles of God in the patriarchal narratives: "God Most High", !wyl[ la (Gn 14:18-20, 22); "God of heaven",
~ymX la (Gn 24:3, 7); "Everlasting God", ~lw[ la (Gn 21:33); "God Almighty", ydX la (Gn 17:1; 28:3;
35:11; 43:14; 48:3) (Smith 1968:107).
938
Smith 1968:107.
939
See § 3.5, § 3.6 and § 3.8.1.
196
influence on their perception of Yahweh and Yahwism, and particularly influenced related
traditions. It is therefore necessary that I take note of relevant myths and legends that clearly
had an effect on the Israelite traditions, and the compilation thereof in the Masoretic Text.
As mentioned in paragraph 3.1, a myth can be defined as a 'traditional narrative usually in-
volving supernatural or imaginary persons and often embodying popular ideas on natural or
social phenomena'. 940 Myths are attempts to explain everyday occurrences and "inexplicable"
events. They also functioned 'to justify an existing social system and account for traditional
rites and customs', 941 and thereby became a device to create history. 942 In Israel, myth served
primarily 'to give a cosmic dimension and transcendent meaning to the historical', 943 and sel-
dom dissolved history that always stood in a strong tension with myth. Migratory patterns in
the Ancient Near East resulted therein that neighbouring communities influenced one another
in respect of literary creations which incorporated established myths. Similarly, legends, 944
which are traditional stories recounting the wonderful deeds of some acclaimed – legendary –
person, were adopted and modified. Many legends developed to account for anomalies in the
biblical text. 'Mesopotamian legends familiar to the early Hebrews were recast and edited by
later Israelites to illustrate sacred teachings.'945 Therefore, some biblical narratives could be
clarified by comparing it with parallels from those nations with whom they were continuously
in contact. Myths and religion were mostly associated, and therefore myths may be informa-
tive on religion. Myths – and legends – were furthermore records of matters pertaining to dy-
nastic changes, social reforms, introduction of foreign cults, invasions and migrations. 946
Many scholars agree that myths were not invented by Israel, but adopted from other nations
and then adapted. Main mythic themes in the Hebrew Bible can be traced to ancient forms,
particularly from Ugaritic and Mesopotamian traditions. As an historical source, the Hebrew
Bible is to a large extent unreliable, written by people with "mythic minds", who operated in a
world of symbols and narratives. Most elements in the Hebrew Bible which have been recog-
nised as having mythic status, 'had antecedents and congeners in the wider near eastern
world'.947 History, as told in the Hebrew Bible, is 'highly ideological in its intent', 948 and
940
Kruger 2001a:47-48. See also § 3.1 for a discussion of "myth".
941
Graves 1996:v.
942
Kunin 1995:41.
943
Cross 1973:90.
944
See also footnote in § 1.5.
945
Silver 1974:9, 311.
946
Graves 1996:vii.
947
Wyatt 2005:170.
948
Wyatt 2005:173.
197
should therefore be classified as myth; history and myth not being opposing terms 949 – myth
being one of the main vehicles by which biblical writers did their theologising. 950 A French
scholar, Lévi-Strauss951 – who compared myth with language and music – was concerned
with the logic of myth, and wrote that 'myth grows spiral-wise until the intellectual impulse
which has produced it is exhausted'.952 He indicates that myth presents an intricate mass of
data, and that the interpreter should get to the deep structure of the myth, for which he shall
need a sensitivity to assess the complexities thereof. 953 The meaning of a story is discovered
only when it is in relationship 'with alternate forms and presentations of the myth'. 954 Gas-
ter955 denotes that myths and chronicles in the Hebrew Bible 'are paradigms of the continuing
human situation we are involved in, … [and] myth, as an extension of existential experience,
is thus the natural language of Religion'.
Although it is the tendency to assume that all beliefs originated in Mesopotomia, and from
there moved to the West, many assyriologists indicate that, instead of Mesopotamian influ-
ences on the mythological and religious concepts of Mediterranean peoples, the coastal re-
gions affected ideas in Mesopotamia.956 The discovery of epigraphic material attests the tex-
tual transmission of mythological matter, as early as the fourteenth century BC, throughout
the fertile crescent.957
Some myths and legends of the Ancient Near East, and their biblical counterparts, are dis-
cussed briefly hereafter.
Wyatt958 refers to the Chaoskampf 959

tradition wherein the deity battles with a sea monster,
gains a kingdom in victory, and becomes a hero. This myth cuts through Hebrew literary tra-
ditions and forms the paradigm of creation, Genesis 1; redemption from Egypt, Exodus 15;
redemption to come, Isaiah 27:1. Psalm 89 relates Yahweh's victory in the primeval battle
949
Wyatt 2005:155, 167, 170, 173.
950
Batto 1992:1.
951
See also reference to Lévi-Strauss in § 3.1.
952
Williams, R B 1977:280.
953
Williams, R B 1977:279-281.
954
Williams, R B 1977:285.
955
Gaster 1969:xxxiv, xxxvi.
956
Sjöberg 1984:218.
957
Mondi 1990:149.
958
Wyatt 2005:168.
959
The Chaoskampf tradition occurs primarily in the Ugaritic Ba‛al cycle of myths (KTU 1.1-6) (Wyatt
2005:168). See also CTA 3.2.3-30, KTU 1.3 II and § 3.5 for Ba‛al's battle with Yam and Mot. Apart from the
deities Yam and Mot, there are passing references in the Ugaritic texts to a number of chaos demons defeated by
Ba‛al (Mondi 1990:171).
198
granting the king security to rule. 960 Divine kingship is thus attained through the cosmic
struggle and the subsequent establishing of the world order.961
The Enuma Elish962 or Epic of Creation, is an Akkadian text that recounts the cosmic conflict
between the mother goddess Tiamat963 – personifying the primeval ocean – and the young
Marduk.964 The victorious Marduk – who is acknowledged as supreme deity – creates the
universe and humankind. He split Tiamat's corpse and created two spheres of water – remi-
niscent of the divided waters in Genesis 1:6-8. Although the battle with Tiamat – the dragon
ocean – is East Semitic in the Enuma Elish version, the myth is actually of West Semitic
origin. 965 The Ba‛al cycle myth966 recounts Ba‛al's struggle for supremacy in the West Semit-
ic pantheon and cosmic domination.967 This cosmic struggle is compared with Yahweh's bat-
tle with the sea monsters.968
A number of fragmentary versions of the Eridu Genesis969 – a Sumerian creation myth, dated
ca 1600 BC – contain several parallels with the first chapters of biblical Genesis. Both ac-
counts of the creation of humankind are structured in a similar way. This Sumerian myth in-
cludes a description of the founding of the first cities, the institution of kingship, and a great
flood.970 There are striking similarities between this version and the biblical creation narra-
tive – particularly as told in the P-source.971 Apart from the comparability of structure of the
960
Wyatt 2005:168-169.
961
Mondi 1990:177.
962
See footnote in § 3.1. The text consists of seven tablets, probably composed during the eleventh century BC
(ANET 60-72, 501-503) (Arnold & Beyer 2002:31-50). Some scholars maintain that, due to the composition
being dated the twelfth to eleventh century BC, the possibility that the creation narratives in the Hebrew Bible
borrowed concepts from this epic, should be excluded (Sjöberg 1984:218).
963
964
See footnotes in § 2.14.6 and § 3.1.
965
Arnold & Beyer 2002:31-32.
966
See earlier footnote in this paragraph. Six tablets excavated at Ugarit contain a conflict myth – the Ba‛al cy-
cle myth. The tablets are dated the first half of the fourteenth century BC. Ilimilku is indicated as the scribe
responsible for the preserving of the myth (Arnold & Beyer 2002:50-62).
967
968
Rahab: Job 9:13; 26:12; Psalm 89:10; Isaiah 51:9. A mythological sea serpent or dragon. Functions similarly
to an originally Canaanite chaos monster, the Leviathan. In the Hebrew Bible Rahab appears as a sea monster
defeated during creation, or as a metaphorical name for Egypt (Day 1992c:610). See also footnote in § 3.5.
Leviathan: Job 3:8; Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1. A mythological sea serpent or dragon personifying the chaos wa-
ters. Mentioned in the Ugaritic texts, Hebrew Bible and Jewish literature. The name means "twisting one". The
Leviathan's defeat is associated with Yahweh – particularly in a creation context (Day 1992b:295).
"Sea monster": Psalm 74:13.
969
A clay tablet from Nippur (see footnote in § 2.4) and a fragment from Ur (see footnote in § 3.6), are both in-
scribed with Sumerian text. A third fragment, translated into Akkadian, is dated ca 600 BC. Although the frag-
ments of these texts represent different versions of the myth, they are, nonetheless, all renderings of the original
story. A list of cities are also given. The god Enki (see also footnote in § 2.3) is portrayed as the saviour of man-
kind. Eridu was his first city (Jacobsen 1981:513-514, 519).
970
The hero of the Sumerian Flood Chronicle is named Ziusudra (Arnold & Beyer 2002:13-15).
971
See § 8.2 for a brief discussion of the P-source.
199
two stories, they represent an analogous style of a peculiar and unusual character. 972 A paral-
lel to Elohim's divine command on the six successive days of creation in Genesis 1 is found in
the Memphis creation narrative. 973
Von Rad974 indicates that the Priestly account of the creation 975 is 'in essence not myth or sa-
ga, but Priestly doctrine … [this] ancient, sacred knowledge, [was] preserved and handed on
by many generations of priests, repeatedly pondered, taught, reformed and expanded most
carefully and compactly by new reflections and experiences of faith'. Several irregularities in
the textual material clearly indicate that the process of transmission was exposed to radical
purification and extraction of all mythical and speculative elements.
Cassuto976 theorises that the Israelites had an epic tradition concerning the Garden of Eden
narrative,977 which has a fixed literary form in one or more epic poems, as well as being sup-
ported in a number of biblical texts. Skinner 978 regards this epic as 'one of the most charming
idylls in literature … marked by childlike simplicity of conception, exuberant though pure
imagination, and a captivating freedom of style'. A mythological background appears every-
where, with symbols derived from ancient religious traditions. Some scholars believe that the
Sumerian myth – Enki979 and Ninhursag980 – about the loss of paradise is a parallel to the loss
of the Garden of Eden. 981 In the description of Eden a blend of mythic and historical elements
is found. Based on a mythic garden-of-God theme, these mythic elements are sufficient to
suggest a 'divine dwelling within the human, historical context'. 982 Mondi983 indicates that
similarities have been noted between the complex of mythic themes associated with Canaanite
El and biblical Eden. Parallel themes with ancient Mesopotamian and Ugaritic traditions are,
inter alia, "Tree of Life", "serpent", 984 "divine dwelling" – as described in a Canaanite and
972
In both traditions chronology plays a role; precise figures for the length of reigns and life spans of persons are
listed – extraordinarily large figures (Jacobsen 1981:527-528).
973
Arnold & Beyer 2002:63-65. Ptah, the god of crafts was worshipped at Memphis in Egypt. He fashioned
gods and kings out of precious metals. He created by thinking and speaking out aloud the names of all the gods
(Willis 1993:39).
974
Von Rad 1972:63-64.
975
Genesis 1:1-2:4a (Boshoff et al 2000:162).
976
Cassuto 1961:72-73.
977
Genesis 2:8-3:24.
978
Skinner 1930:51-52.
979
For information on Enki, see footnote in § 2.3, and an earlier footnote in this paragraph.
980
981
The date of the composition is unknown, but there are copies dated the first half of the second millennium BC
(Arnold & Beyer 2002:15-19).
982
Wallace 1992a:282.
983
Mondi 1990:174.
984
See also discussion on "Eve" in § 3.3.
200
Mesopotamian myth – "council of the heavenly beings", "life-giving waters" (rivers), "abun-
dant fertility", "trees of supernatural quality and great beauty". 985
There are several indications that the literary unity of the Garden of Eden narrative is flawed.
A particular problem is the confusion concerning the two trees on which the fate of man de-
pends: the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge" of good and evil. 986 The "Tree of
Knowledge"987 in the middle of the garden is the focal point of the narrative. This motif dis-
closes certain Mesopotamian links. 988 The "Tree of Life" confers immortality on those who
eat from it. Occasional descriptions of sacred trees with magical powers are found throughout
Ancient Near Eastern literature. The origins of the concept of the "Tree of Life" are, howev-
er, obscure. Apart from the biblical texts, there is no explicit reference of such a particular
tree in other ancient literature. Other references in the Masoretic Text to the "Tree of Life"
are found only in Proverbs; in Proverbs 3:18 it is equated with wisdom. 989 Hestrin990 indi-
cates that from a very early period the sacred tree symbol formed part of the tradition in most
of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Since the beginning of the second millennium BC the
stylised sacred tree – highly artificial – was an accepted motif of Assyrian art. This design is
also found on a variety of pottery vessels in Palestine.
Some of the mythical features in the Garden of Eden narrative have their counterparts in the
Ancient Near East. The "Tree of Life" has an association with the world cosmic tree, and
may represent immortality or wisdom. The "Tree of Knowledge" may have some connection
with the attainment of human faculties. The serpent was believed to possess natural and su-
pernatural qualities; it was also associated with wisdom. Entities which usually appear in an-
cient myths – gods, trees, serpents and humans – were all retained in the final text of Genesis
3. This narrative, with all its mythological symbols, may have been composed as a polemic
against some of the religious and cultural beliefs held by the ancient Israelites. 991 Exact paral-
lels of the biblical name Adam have been identified in Amorite and Ebla texts. 992 Scholars
have concluded, furthermore, that a goddess lies behind Eve. 993
985
Wallace 1992a:282-283.
986
Skinner 1930:52.
987
Genesis 2:17; 3:3-5.
988
Speiser 1964:20, 25-26.
989
Wallace 1992b:658.
990
Hestrin 1991:54. The life-giving tree was also depicted in Egypt. A wall painting from the burial chamber of
Pharaoh Tutmosis III portrays the ruler being suckled by a breast protruding from a sycamore tree (Hestrin
1991:54).
991
Kruger 2001a:51-52, 54-55, 69.
992
Layton 1997:23.
993
Wyatt 1999c:316. See § 3.3 for a discussion of Eve.
201
Three different major Flood chronicles have survived: the Sumerian Flood story, the eleventh
tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Athra-Hasis Epic. Details of these narratives indicate
clearly that they 'are intimately related to the biblical flood story, and, indeed, that the Baby-
lonian and biblical accounts of the flood represent different retellings of an essentially identi-
cal flood tradition'. 994
The well-known Gilgamesh Epic995 is probably the greatest Babylonian work of literature.
The narrative describes the meeting of the legendary Gilgamesh – king of Uruk – and Ut-
napishtim, who relates how he received immortality when forewarned of a divine plan to
flood the world. Utnapishtim has been called the "Babylonian Noah". The biblical Flood sto-
ry and the Babylonian Flood Epic include many obvious similarities. 996 Numerous parallels
between this epic and the Garden of Eden narrative have also been identified. 997 Themes,
such as sexual awareness, wisdom and nature's paradise, are attested in various ancient
sources. It is, however, noteworthy that all of these motifs appear in the Gilgamesh Epic.998
Samson, of the Book of Judges, 999 has been compared with Gilgamesh. 1000
Certain books in the Hebrew Bible contain remarkable parallels with the wisdom of the An-
cient Near East,1001 suggesting a dependence on the wisdom of those people. Regarding the
Epic of Gilgamesh, there are at least six parallels between this literary work and biblical
994
Frymer-Kensky 1988:61-62.
995
The Epic of Gilgamesh is composed in Akkadian, and relates the adventures of Gilgamesh who ruled ca 2600
BC in Uruk. The narrative is recorded on twelve tablets. Various episodes of the epic may have circulated as
early as 2100-2000 BC. At some stage the independent narratives were woven into a whole. Major Mesopota-
mian sites continue to yield copies and fragments of the epic. As no complete edition has survived from any
single site, scholars have created a composite version. The different narratives share major characters and spe-
cific episodes, but obviously address different audiences. See Sasson (1992:1024-1027) for a discussion of this
epic. Uruk (biblical Erech) was one of the prominent Sumerian cities in the lower part of Mesopotamia. The
Sumerian deity An-Anu was the highest god in the pantheon at Uruk. Kish (see footnote in § 2.4), being the first
seat of Mesopotamian kingship after the Flood, was succeeded by Uruk as centre of power. Gilgamesh (original-
ly Bilgamesh in Sumerian) is the best known king of the First Dynasty of Uruk (Bodine 1994:22, 24, 29). His
name might be of Kassite or Elamite origin. A real national hero did become, at times, the centre of different
legends of deities and supernatural beings. Mythologically he was regarded as a type of solar god (Spence
1994:249).
996
Utnapishtim built a large reed boat which allowed him to survive the Flood. He was accompanied by his
family and pairs of all the animals. See Arnold & Beyer (2002:66-70) for a translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
997
Wright 1996:321. Parallels between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Garden of Eden narrative are, inter alia,
the creation of Enkidu – a counterpart of Gilgamesh – out of clay; Enkidu's association with the animals; the
subsequent appearance of a woman – a harlot – who engages him in sex after which he becomes very wise, like a
god. The epic furthermore deals with immortality – a possibility which is foiled by a snake (Wright 1996:321).
998
Speiser 1964:26.
999
Judges 13:1-16:31.
1000
1001
Particularly certain parts of the Book of Proverbs – especially Proverbs 12:17-13:11 – as well as the Book of
Job (Day 1995:55-56).
202
Qohelet, illustrating the dependence of the latter on Gilgamesh. 1002 Both compositions 'com-
pare the shallowness of human achievement to the wind … [and] both employ the unusual
image of the threefold cord'.1003
The Epic of Atra-Hasis1004 describes a massive flood intended to destroy humankind. Atra-
Hasis was warned in advance and survived in a boat. This epic presents the story in primeval
history, and therefore in a context comparable to that of Genesis. Although an ancient epic,
the literary work portrays considerable development. The author(s) utilised old motifs which
are presented in a coherent account. As in Genesis, the flood came in response to a major
problem in creation. 1005
A fragmentary tablet of the first Sumerian tradition of the Flood has been found in the ruins of
Nippur.1006 In this legend the king and the priest Ziusudra – "Long of Life" – is introduced
where the latter is carving a god to worship and consult as an oracle. Ziusudra is saved in a
boat during the deluge which lasted seven days. He was informed beforehand of the verdict
reached by the gods to destroy mankind. This account has been recorded in the Sumerian
1002
Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) Gilgamesh
9:5-9 (Revised Standard Version) x. iii. 6-14 (Babylonian version)
For the living know that they will die, but the dead Gilgamesh, whither do you rove?
know nothing and they have no more reward; but The life you pursue you shall not find.
the memory of them is lost. Their love and their When the gods created mankind,
hate and their envy have already perished, and they Death for mankind they set aside,
have no more for ever any share in all that is done Life in their own hands retaining.
under the sun.
Go and eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink As for you, Gilgamesh, let your belly be full,
your wine with a merry heart; for God has already make merry by day and by night.
approved what you do. Of each day make a feast of rejoicing,
Day and night dance and play!
Let your garments be always white; let not oil be Let your garments be sparkling fresh,
lacking on your head. Your head be washed; bathe in water.
Pay heed to the little one that holds on
to your hand
Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the Let your spouse delight in your bosom!
days of your vain life which he has given you under
the sun, because that is your portion in life and in For this is the task of [mankind]!
your toil which you toil under the sun.
(Day 1995:59-60).
1003
Day 1995:55-56, 59-61. The "threefold cord" refers to, inter alia, 'two are better than one … if they fall, one
will lift up his fellow … . A threefold cord is not quickly broken' (Qohelet 4:9-12) (Day 1995:60-61).
1004
The Epic of Atra-Hasis was probably composed in the early second millennium BC. It describes the creation
of humankind and its near extinction in a flood. Humans were created to perform physical work for the gods.
When they became noisy and burdensome, the high gods decided to destroy them in a massive flood. Many edi-
tions of this epic are extant from various periods of Mesopotamian history (Arnold & Beyer 2002:21-31). See
also footnote in § 3.3.
1005
Frymer-Kensky 1988:63-65.
1006
See footnote on Nippur in § 2.4.
203
King List,1007 which contains documents of historiographic character. Instead of poems or
epics – as in the case of the previous two chronicles – the King List was published for chrono-
logical and historical purposes. Sumer's history is divided into two periods: before the Flood,
and after the Flood.1008
Scholars deduce that Genesis 6-9 recounts two different stories about the Flood, which are
interwoven in these chapters. The oral nature of the basic source material is probably ac-
countable for these different renderings. Early redactors generally added features from differ-
ent versions to a particular narrative. These details often seemingly contradicted each other.
This material was arranged with a specific purpose in mind, most likely by two authors or
schools.1009 Follansbee1010 reconstructs 'a primitive and original version of the [Flood] story
of which those elements were an integral and essential feature, and from which our extant
forms may well have been derived'.
Finds excavated at the Mesopotamian city Kish include a major flood-deposit level dated ca
3300 BC.1011 Definite evidence at Ur1012 reveals a great flood of waters more than seven me-
tres deep. Apart from a few cities on high mounds, everything in the Delta would have been
destroyed. The higher areas of Ur escaped the flood, but houses at the foot of the mound were
wiped out. Several villages perished and were never again inhabited. 1013
Genesis 11:1-9 records the account of the "tower of Babel" as an explanation for all the dif-
ferent languages in the world. This text represents a Sumerian equivalent, although there is
no certainty about the translation of a key phrase in the Sumerian epic, Enmerkar and the
Lord of Aratta.1014
1007
The Sumerian King List contains a list of the kings of Sumer. The original was written when Utuhegal –
king of Uruk (see an earlier footnote in this paragraph) – liberated Sumer from the domination of Guti; the date
of this event is uncertain and lies between ca 2120 and ca 2065 BC. Eight kings are mentioned and five antedi-
luvian cities, namely Eridu, Badtibira, Larak, Sippar and Shuruppak. A brief text refers to the Flood, 'these are
five cities, eight kings ruled them for 241,000 years. (Then) the Flood swept over (the earth). After the Flood
had swept over (the earth) (and) when kingship was lowered (again) from heaven, kingship was (first) in Kish'
(Hämmerly-Dupuy 1988:57-58).
1008
Hämmerley-Dupuy 1988:55-59.
1009
Habel 1988:13, 15, 25, 28.
1010
Follansbee 1988:76. Evidence from mythological texts from Ugarit (see § 2.8) – dated the middle of the
second millennium BC – is implemented in a reconstruction of an original version of the Flood chronicle. Fol-
lansbee suggests that in the original Hebrew story – from which the biblical text is a later redaction – the hero
Noah played the part of Aleyan-Ba‛al (see § 3.5). See Follansbee (1988:75-85) for a detailed discussion of this
suggestion.
1011
Wiseman 1982c:665.
1012
1013
Woolley 1988:95.
1014
The phrase, 'harmony-tongued Sumer', is questioned (Arnold & Beyer 2002:71).
204
A first millennium BC Akkadian document known as the Autobiography of Sargon, explains
the unexpected and rapid rise of Sargon the Great, first great Semitic ruler of Mesopotamia.
He was the founder of the Dynasty of Akkad. 1015 This document contains a birth legend of
Sargon, explaining that he was an illegitimate son of a priestess. She abandoned her baby; as
priestess she was not permitted to bear children. Written in the first person, the composition
mentions, inter alia,
'My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch.
She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape.
The river carried me along; to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me.
Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up.
Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son.'1016
There is an unmistakeable parallel between this birth legend and that of Moses:
'The woman conceived and bore a son … , she hid him three months. When she
could hide him no longer, she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it
with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and placed it among the reeds by the
river bank. … . When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter,
and he became her son.'1017
A Sumerian account of Sargon's rise to power, mentions that his ascendancy was foretold to
him in a dream. Sargon was a cupbearer to king Urzababa of Kish. 1018 The king was dis-
pleased with the prophecy in Sargon's dream although he had, beforehand, premonitions of
his own downfall. 'Sargon's dream of replacing his master and ruler is reminiscent of the
dreams of Joseph in Genesis 37.'1019 Both Sargon's dream and those of Joseph are categorised
as symbolic dreams. Although scholars recognise the folkloristic character of the Joseph nar-
rative, neither his story nor that of Sargon's rise to power is a folktale. The Joseph chronicle
concludes the patriarchal narrative that brought the family of Jacob into Egypt. The introduc-
tion of the Sargon text depicts a prosperous Kish ruled by Urzababa. This text is part of a
group of "historical-literary" compositions which describe the rise and fall of Mesopotamian
1015
Sargon ruled 2334-2279 BC (Arnold & Beyer 2002:75).
1016
Translation of this composition is in Arnold & Beyer (2002:75-76).
1017
Exodus 2:2-10.
1018
1019
Cooper 1985:34. Genesis 37:1-11 recounts that Joseph, as a young boy, dreamt that the sheaves in the field
bowed before his sheaf, and that 'the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down' to him (Gn 37:9).
205
leadership, prior to the Old Babylonian Period. 1020 Although these two "dream narratives"
have no specific details in common, they may, even so, have some common ancestor. 1021
Batto1022 mentions that "myth" is generally recognised within the primeval narratives of Gen-
esis 1-11, while, to suggest that the story of the exodus may also be a myth, is not easily ac-
cepted. In the exodus chronicle 'myth is replaced by historical consciousness, … . Biblical
religion is at core historical'. 1023 Although biblical revelation frequently revolved around his-
torical events, it should be recognised that myth – even more than history – served as an
agency of biblical revelation. The question is whether the exodus was conceived as an histor-
ical event within biblical tradition, or whether this tradition presented it as a timeless story.
Batto1024 indicates that the different literary strands in the Pentateuch portraying the Israelites'
escape from Egypt, compels scholars 'to conclude that we are dealing primarily with a devel-
oping literary tradition that owes as much – or more – to myth as to history'.
Wenham1025 indicates that, although 'Genesis shares many of the theological presuppositions
of the ancient world', most of the chronicles therein are presented as an alternative world view
to that which is generally accepted in the Ancient Near East. Genesis 1-11 essentially chal-
lenges ancient beliefs about God, the world and mankind. The Hebrew writer probably ap-
propriated familiar mythological motifs, adapted into an original story of his own.1026 The
Israelite textual material displays a tendency to moderate mythical elements in traditions in-
herited by them. Myths in Genesis 1-11, as well as chronicles in the Book of Joshua, provide
explanations for certain existing phenomena. There is, however, a vast difference between
the explanation of the myths, and that of the conquest narratives. 1027 Many traditions are be-
hind present-day biblical texts, which provided the author with his basic material. In the final
product the different components have been blended to such an extent that there is not much
hope for a successful recovery. 1028 Vehse1029 denotes that the primary purpose of narratives is
to convey a message. Historical myths, therefore, are independent of historical accuracy, but
1020
Old Babylonian Period dated 2000-1595 BC (Arnold 1994:47).
1021
Cooper 1985:33-39.
1022
Batto 1992:102.
1023
Batto 1992:102.
1024
Batto 1992:102-103, 126. See Batto (1992:102-127) for a discussion of 'the exodus as myth'.
1025
Wenham 1987:xiv.
1026
Wenham 1987:53.
1027
Ramsey 1981:80.
1028
Speiser 1964:25.
1029
Vehse 1995:440.
206
suggest how people thought about happenings. Scholars generally agree that the historical
books in the Hebrew Bible are "historicised myth" or "mythologised history". 1030
The above discussions – albeit brief – are only a few examples of Ancient Near Eastern litera-
ture and folklore that had an influence on biblical traditions, as presented in the Hebrew Bi-
ble. In Boshoff and others,1031 Ancient Near Eastern and comparable biblical literature are
tabled.

My research problem indicates that biblical scholars recognise the complexity of the origin of
Yahwism. It has been ascertained that beliefs and deities of the Ancient Near Eastern peoples
played a significant role in the religion of Israel. Furthermore, consensus has been reached
amongst most scholars that a large section of the Israelites – apart from recognising Yahweh
as their national God – practised syncretism, wherein deities of their neighbours were
acknowledged and venerated. Attributes of these deities had a notable influence on the spe-
cific image of Yahweh as perceived by the Israelites. Descendants of the various so-called
Israelite tribes emphasised particular aspects and characteristics in their worship of Yahweh.
The attributes of the different gods thus reached culmination in the being of one Deity, Yah-
weh. Through the continuous migration of the Ancient Near Eastern peoples, from one place
to another, their customs, traditions and beliefs were widely spread. In my research I endeav-
our to find a plausible answer for the disparity that, while the pre-exilic Israelites practised
syncretism for centuries, the post-exilic Judahites – within a number of years – observed a
strict discipline of monotheism. The main purpose, therefore, of incorporating this chapter in
my thesis is that, in the light of the Israelites' syncretism – as well as the culmination of the
attributes of the ancient gods in the figure of Yahweh – it is a prerequisite for the remainder of
my research that I am knowledgeable about the Ancient Near Eastern beliefs and deities.
Since the discovery of innumerable extra-biblical texts – as discussed in Chapter 2 – it has

come to light that the mythologies and legends of the different Ancient Near Eastern peoples
– particularly the Canaanites – had a significant effect on the religion of the Israelites, as well
as on many biblical texts that were obviously influenced by these ancient – notably Mesopo-
tamian – myths and legends. Myths narrate origins in the primordial time 1032 and are
1030
Dever 1997a:21.
1031
Boshoff et al 2000:53.
1032
Kruger 2001a:48.
207
developed to explain natural phenomena. 1033 Some mythological literature could also act as a
polemical vehicle for controversial beliefs and views. 1034 A collection of myths is generally
inherent in religion. Some biblical texts and narratives could be clarified by comparison of
literary parallels of the Ancient Near East. Myth and religion cannot readily be separated;
myth may be an obvious alternative to history. 1035 Myth and history can co-exist; therefore
the mythical nature of texts need not be affected by the potential historicity of texts. Myth,
ritual and social structure validate existence in society. 1036
The scientific study – developed during the course of the nineteenth century – of myths and of
mythical material in the Hebrew Bible indicates that many narratives were the products of a
long process of evolution of community traditions. 1037 A combination of mythical and histor-
ical traditions, which were not easily distinguishable, characterise the Israelite religion and
biblical texts. Myth cannot be regarded as being informative on either history or culture. The
relation between myth and history is often indeterminate; history, mostly being the criterion
by which myth is judged. 1038 'Mythical thought and mythical literature are at the very heart of
Israel's religion.'1039
Considering the thousands of texts, or fragments of texts, that have been excavated and of
which a large portion deals with ancient myths, it is clear that deities and cultic rituals were of
the utmost importance for these ancient peoples. It is furthermore evident that there had been
an integration of deities from different pantheons, inevitably influencing one another and con-
sequently adopting attributes. From the many inscriptions recovered and information gath-
ered, it is apparent that many of the same gods and goddesses – with cognate names – materi-
alised in various pantheons.
For an extensive synopsis of Asherah/Athirat and synonymous female deities, see paragraph
3.2.4.
This goddess Asherah – known as Canaanite Athirat – was evidently originally a West Semit-
ic deity, who was at some or other time admitted to the Mesopotamian pantheon. She was
1033
Jay 1996:35.
1034
Kruger 2001b:214.
1035
Vehse 1995:440.
1036
Kunin 1995:23-24, 44.
1037
Oden 1992:946.
1038
Kunin 1995:25.
1039
Oden 1992:960.
208
also known as Athiratu or Athirtu. She appears in different mythologies, covering more or
less the whole region of the Ancient Near East. The earliest known reference to Asherah is in
texts from Ebla, dated ca 2350 BC. She furthermore emerges in the Mesopotamian cult as
Ashratu, consort of the Amorite storm and warrior god Amurru. Both Asherah and Gešti-
nanna – goddess of the Underworld – with whom Asherah was equated, were regarded as
consorts of Amurru. Depicted as a solar deity, Asherah spent her nights with Geštinanna in
the Netherworld. Ašratum, characterised as a goddess of the nomads, was often referred to as
Ašratum bēlet sēri, "Lady of the Steppe". Athirat, venerated in Arabia as solar deity, was a
consort of the Arabian moon gods, ‛Amm and Wadd. Canaanite Athirat may therefore have
been originally a solar deity and thus consort of the Semitic moon god Yrh. An early Ugaritic
text indicates her as the solar deity Athiratu, "who treads the heavens from end to end". At a
later stage she lost her solar character to become a maritime goddess – Athirat. Ugaritic texts
furthermore refer to her as Canaanite El's consort, also know as ’Elat. The Ugaritic word atrt,
and Hebrew cognate ’ašērâ, were originally common nouns meaning "wife", "consort", liter-
ally denoting "she-who-follows-in-the-footsteps" (of her husband). Athirat was also known in
Egypt as Qudšu. A relief from Thebes in Egypt refers to gdš-‛strt-‛nt, indicating a fusion with
the Canaanite goddesses Astarte and Anat. She finally lost her position in all Canaanite reli-
gions, but maintained it as Asherah in the religion of the Israelites.
This brief indication of different appearances of Asherah/Athirat at various pantheons, and

with cognate names, substantiates my theory that, similarly, the veneration of a Ya-deity – or
deities with analogous names – over a vast area of the Ancient Near East, is conceivable.
The goddess Asherah – hrXa – was worshipped in Palestine at the time when the Israelites
established themselves there, being popular among the Northern Israelites and Judeans alike.
Biblical Asherah could be explained as 'a phenomenon of official religion, a forbidden non-
conformist cult, a house-cult or part of popular religion'.1040 Over a period of time scholars
have made various suggestions regarding the meaning of Asherah in the Hebrew Bible. Klet-
ter1041 states that Asherah was an undeniable component of the official cult of Judah, intro-
duced into the Jerusalem Temple by the Judean kings as a foreign, but not forbidden cult.
Consensus has not been reached by scholars regarding the problematic word ’ašērâ in the
Masoretic Text. According to various text references in the Hebrew Bible, the word seems to
1040
Kletter 2001:199.
1041
Kletter 2001:200.
209
indicate a wooden cult object, a pole, a tree or a stone. Vriezen 1042 is of the opinion that, on
the basis of a number of descriptions in the Hebrew Bible referring to ’ašērâ, it could be de-
duced that it was an object used in the cult placed next to the altars and next to the pillars ded-
icated to Ba‛al. A sacred tree or pole was presumably treated as a symbol of this goddess.
Some scholars conceive that, in certain cases, the sacred pole or tree-trunk had a masculine
phallic character. Cult statues made of wood were common in the Ancient Near East.
According to Korpel,1043 the Asherah mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Ugaritic
Asherah are identical. She was familiar in ancient Israel as her name was linked to El, who
was an Israelite God. She was probably acceptable to many Israelites as a goddess next to
Yahweh-El. When the dominant position she has in the Hebrew Bible is taken into considera-
tion, she is the only likely candidate in the syncretistic religious practices of Iron Age Judah
and the Northern Kingdom. Archaeological finds interpreted as remains of a hbcm or an
’ašērâ, and an altar, could be an indication that both Yahweh and "his Asherah" were wor-
shipped alongside each other in that particular sanctuary, each with its own cult object. 1044
Miller 1045 denotes that, regarding the question of a goddess in the Israelite religion, one cannot
declare unreservedly 'that one of the distinctive features of the worship of Yahweh was the
absence of any consort in the cult or theology associated with Yahweh'. Since the discovery
of the inscriptions – "Yahweh and his Asherah" – at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom, the
possibility of a female consort for Yahweh has been debated extensively. Despite ongoing
debates, scholars have reached reasonable agreement, accepting that Asherah in the Masoretic
Text refers to both an independent goddess and her wooden cult symbol.
It has become clear that the ancient Israelite cult made far more allowances in religious beliefs
and practices than admitted by the exilic and post-exilic editors of the Masoretic Text. Al-
though the queen mother – hrybg – held no official office within the Judean and Israelite
monarchies, she nevertheless had an official status. Ackerman 1046 proposes that the queen
mother had the official responsibility to dedicate herself to the cult of Asherah, the mother
goddess. The most explicit link indicating such a cult activity is expressed in 1 Kings 15:13,
when king Asa removed his mother Maacah, as 'she had made an abominable image for
Asherah'. The queen mother Jezebel – frequently accused of introducing the alien cult of
1042
Vriezen 2001:73.
1043
Korpel 2001:149.
1044
Vriezen 2001:74-75.
1045
Miller 1986:239.
1046
Ackerman 1993:388.
210
Asherah into the religion of the Northern Kingdom – most likely worshipped Asherah as an
element of the state cult in her capacity as hrybg. Maacah, Athalia and Nehushta from Judah,
together with Jezebel from the Northern Kingdom, are four queen mothers identified in the
Hebrew Bible as devotees of Asherah.
The discussion of four female deities – Eve, Lilith, Anat and Anahita – is deemed necessary
for extra background for my research.
Some mythical aspects linked to Eve, first created female and therefore prototype of women,
led various scholars to conclude that a goddess lies behind Eve. A Sumerian cuneiform sign
TI – signifying both the words "life" and "rib" – refers to a female named NIN.TI. The name
could be interpreted as "Lady of Life" or "Lady of the Rib". NIN.TI is structurally similar to
the aetiology for the designation hwx – Eve, which is connected to the word yx or hyx , mean-
ing life, to live. This association could have led to the legend that Eve had been moulded
from a rib. Eve – known as hwx (h ) – was recognised in Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and
Sumer as mother, guardian and goddess. There is also the possibility that the hidden figure of
the mother goddess Mami lies behind the character of Eve. Mami was a creator goddess,
known as "mistress of all the gods", and is thus analogous to Eve, "the mother of all the liv-
ing". Ancient interpreters undeniably made an association between Eve and the serpent. 1047
Some scholars note a possible wordplay between the Aramaic – related to –
and Arabian , both meaning "serpent". This similarity was seen as that of Eve being a
serpent goddess. Asherah's association with serpents is likewise known, as demonstrated for
example in Proto-Sinaitic texts. The Ancient Near Eastern people regarded the serpent as the
embodiment of wisdom.
Mythical Lilith – who originated from the Sumerian mythology as a demon of desolation –
was linked to Eve by way of being the alleged first wife of Adam. She was also associated
with the Babylonian Lilîtu. Mesopotamian Semites described her as a hideous monster with a
serpent in each hand.
Although the Masoretic Text has no direct reference to the Ugaritic goddess Anat, there are a
few possible allusions to her. In the Ugaritic texts she is portrayed as a consort of Ba‛al, and
1047
Williams, A J 1977:358.
211
there is also a conceivable intimation that she was, in addition, a fertility goddess. The narra-
tives signifying this reproductive role are, however, so damaged that scholars are inconclusive
about this function. The Ugaritic mythological texts present Anat, foremost, as a volatile and
independent warrior and hunter. Her bloodthirsty nature is explicitly demonstrated in a well-
known Ugaritic text. Her vengeance on her enemies has been compared to Yahweh's actions
on a number of occasions. Scholars have indicated striking points of contact between this
Ugaritic "bloodbath" text and Psalm 23. According to Stern, 1048 it is thus clear that Psalm 23
has a mythic background, the Anat text being 'a source of poetic inspiration for a Hebrew
poet'.
The fertility goddess Anahita is a figure of ancient Persian myth. She was also identified with
the planet Venus. In the Zend-Avesta1049 she is known as a goddess of war and is possibly
comparable to Anat.
The prophet Jeremiah attributes the catastrophe of the Exile to the veneration of a goddess,
called the Queen of Heaven, who appears briefly in two passages in Jeremiah. 1050 The women
of Jerusalem and Judah, however, attribute this disaster to their lack of offerings to the Queen
of Heaven. Currently most scholars identify her with Canaanite Astarte, who – apart from
being called "Lady of Heaven" – is frequently associated with the heavens. This link with the
heavens is also connected to Anat, Ishtar and Qudšu/Asherah. The masculine form ‛Athar,
‛Ashtar, is probably the name of the planet Venus; the latter also a personification of the Ak-
kadian goddess Ishtar – the male deity thus being the Morning Star, and the goddess the
Evening Star. In the Hebrew Bible she is referred to as Ashtarot of the Philistines and Ashto-
ret of the Phoenician Sidonians. The Assyrians and Babylonians identified her as Ashtar,
goddess of fertility and love. Sumerian Inanna and Akkadian Ishtar were major goddesses of
love, war and the planet Venus. In Canaan she was attested as Astarte. Clay figurines from
Mesopotamia portray her in a characteristic breast-offering pose, known among archaeolo-
gists as the "Ishtar pose". As described in Jeremiah 44, Judeans were reluctant to abandon
her – probably due to the fertility feature.
An Old Babylonian goddess of Mari – Dīrītum – was initially a manifestation of Ishtar, later
establishing her own identity and rising to prominence in the Mari pantheon. The ideographic
1048
Stern 1994:123-124.
1049
Persian cults and myths are known to us through the Zend-Avesta (Oxford University Press 1964b:1020).
1050
Jeremiah 7:17-18; 44:15-24.
212
form of the name of Shaushka – an important Hurrian goddess – was dIŠHTAR(-ka). She was
associated with Ishtar of Nineveh, with whom she shared some distinctive features. As she
was linked to the Queen of Heaven her character was probably not unknown among the Isra-
elites.
Mesopotamian literature refers to Ishtar with various designations, mostly relating to her dif-
ferent cult centres. Representations of her depict her within a circle. She is identified by stars
– regarded as her symbols – as well as light radiating from her, often standing on a lion. She
is frequently shown together with women – thus corroborating the role she played in the cult
essentially carried out by women.
After 722 BC the Neo-Assyrian Empire imposed an official state religion on Israel introduc-
ing some Mesopotamian cults, probably including that of Ishtar. Consequently her cult was
also brought into Judah. Her veneration by the Judeans included burning incense to her, pour-
ing out libations to her and preparing cakes for her.1051 Although the title Queen of Heaven in
the Hebrew Bible probably refers to the Palestinian Astarte, it is unlikely that associations
with Ishtar – who was particularly related to the planting and harvesting of cereal crops in
Mesopotamia – would have been absent. The ideology of the Judeans incorporated various
religious practices in their worship, thereby anticipating all aspects of favourable divine pow-
er.
The major Ancient Near Eastern deities – notably the storm, warrior and solar gods – share
common characteristics. It is, therefore, hardly possible to compartmentalise them separately.
In the Assyro-Babylonian mythology the storm was conferred on the divinity, Adad – god of
lightning, tempest, storms and winds. At the same time he was responsible for abundant
rains, and had the prerogative to reveal the future. According to the Assyrian version of the
Flood myth, Adad was accountable for the storms and rains that brought about the flood.
Adad and the solar deity Shamash were often linked as guardians of the heavens, and together
with Marduk – god of Babylon – were considered the triad of divine judges. Adad and the
Phoenician grain god Dagan shared the consort Shala. Adad was also known as Hadad
among the Aramaeans and Amorites, as Adad by the Mesopotamians, and as Haddu among
the Canaanites. He was likewise worshipped as warrior god, particularly by the Assyrians.
1051
Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19.
213
Hadad/Adad, whose main sanctuary was in Aleppo, was later assimilated into the Mesopota-
mian pantheon and appeared with the sibitti – the Pleiades1052 – among witnesses to treaties.
A number of kings from the Syrian area had the name Ben-Hadad. Apart from a possible ex-
ception – Hadad-rimmon – the divine designation "Hadad" never appears in the Hebrew Bi-
ble.
The storm god has a distinctive iconography. In the Akkadian period Adad was portrayed
with a thunderbolt and mace on the back of a lion-dragon – and also on the back of a bull. He
wears a conical headdress and is bearded. The Ugaritic storm god Ba‛al was represented with
a thunderbolt, a spear touching the ground with streaks of lightning at its other end, wielding a
mace in his right hand. Although lightning was never depicted independently of the storm
god, it was deified in Mesopotamia. Associated with the storm god as his symbol, lightning
functioned as a weapon of Yahweh in his portrayal as Storm God or Warrior God. Poetic
texts in the Hebrew Bible refer to Yahweh's "arrows", and the lightning-bolt is called a
"spear". It is furthermore identified with the theophany of Yahweh, often in combination with
thunder, cloud and an earthquake.
The Canaanite storm god was known as Ba‛al or Ba‛al Hadad. The word ba‛lu is a Semitic
noun meaning "lord" or "owner". Characteristics of a storm god were repeatedly linked to
Ba‛al, who was undoubtedly the national god in Ugarit, although El, the father of the gods,
was head of the pantheon. The goddess Anat is indicated in the Ugaritic texts as Ba‛al's prin-
ciple consort. According to the content of the Ba‛al myths, Yam, Mot and Ba‛al were the
three competing sons of El. In his battle with Yam – who represented the sea and the unruly
forces of chaos – Ba‛al eventually achieved victory over chaos, thereafter controlling the
weather. Ba‛al Shamem – as a concept of a god of heaven – developed during the first mil-
lennium BC in the North-West Semitic religions. The epithet "God of Heaven" was later
equated with Yahweh in the Judaeo-Israelite religion. The entire area inhabited by Canaanites
was dedicated to the worship of Ba‛al. Myths concerning Ba‛al are found in Ugaritic, Hittite
and Egyptian traditions; the Ugaritic texts contribute to the largest amount of relevant cultic
material.
Although Yahweh acted predominantly as national God of the Israelites, Ba‛al held a unique
position among the inhabitants of Palestine – and thus also among the Israelites. As a divine
1052
214
name, Ba‛al appears seventy-six times in the Hebrew Bible. Authors and redactors of the
Masoretic Text generally show an aversion to idols, speaking of Ba‛al and his worship in pe-
jorative terms. Even before the Israelite settlement in Canaan, a conflict was prevalent be-
tween Yahweh and Ba‛al.1053 An even greater encounter later took place under the Omri-
des.1054 Rituals and customs of the Ba‛al religion were condemned by the prophets. On ac-
count of the similarity of characteristics between Yahweh and Ba‛al, many of the attributes
ascribed to Yahweh familiarise us on the character of the Palestinian Ba‛al. Yet, despite the
absorption of Ba‛al traits by Yahweh, all indications are that the Judeans carried on with syn-
cretistic religious practices – probably worshipping Yahweh alongside Ba‛al. Some of the
older Israelite poems 'juxtapose imagery associated with El and Baal in the Ugaritic texts and
apply this juxtaposition of attributes to Yahweh'. 1055
Descriptions of Ba‛al's theophany in the storm, or his character as a warrior, are explicitly
linked in some iconography. Biblical material, however, presents Yahweh as Divine Warrior,
with power over the storm. 'Yahweh wields the most terrible of weapons, the lightning'; 1056
he appears in the storm and rides on the storm, and reveals himself in the storm, fire, smoke
and cloud. His dwelling is on Mount Sinai where storms gather around the peaks on the
mountain.
The designation "Rider-of-the-Clouds" was applied to Ba‛al long before it became an appella-
tive of Yahweh. When driving in his chariot, Ba‛al goes out to distribute rain, but at the same
time it sets Ba‛al in a position of a warrior god. In Habakkuk 3:8 Yahweh is said to drive a
horse-drawn chariot. The word aliyan – translated as "victorious", "almighty" – is often used
in the Ba‛al mythology, followed by epithets, such as "Rider-upon-the-Clouds". Similarly the
divine name Rakib-Il relates to a chariot-driving warrior. Habakkuk 3:3-7 describes Yahweh's
triumphant march from the "South", distinctly portraying him as a heavenly warrior. A blind-
ing light associated with the theophany of Yahweh clearly depicts him as a solar deity. In
Habakkuk 3 the "Lord of Light" is described as a divine warrior; the plague – rbd – went be-
fore him and pestilence – @Xr – followed on his heels.
Qôs, the national deity of the Edomites, is attested in the names of their kings, Qaus-malak.
The Arabic word qaus – "bow" – which is the deified weapon of the storm god or warrior
1053
Numbers 25:1-5.
1054
1 Kings 16:31-33; 18:17-40.
1055
Smith 1990:21.
1056
Budde 1899:27-28.
215
god, is the etymon of Qôs. Although the majority of references to Qôs are Idumaean, his
name appears in Egyptian listings of names that were possibly those of Shasu clans from the
thirteenth century BC. These clans were associated with Edom and Seir. 1057 At the same time
Egyptian records point to a possible link between the Shasu and 'Yhw in the land of the Shas-
u'. 1058 This connection between Yhw and the Shasu from Edom and Seir is significant in the
light of Yahweh's "triumphant march from the South". 1059 It is furthermore a substantiation of
the Kenite hypothesis, according to which Yahweh was venerated by the Kenites and Midian-
ites before Moses became acquainted with Yahweh. My hypothesis is in accordance with this
proposal by scholars. Knauf1060 indicates that Qôs is presented as closely related to Yahweh,
and therefore he poses the question 'could the two have originally been identical?' Consider-
ing the number of features that coincide, this argument by Knauf is not implausible. At a
Nabatean shrine, Qôs is represented on a throne flanked by bulls with a thunderbolt in his left
hand – presumably indicating that he was a storm god.
The Divine Warrior is, according to Miller, 1061 'one of the major images of God' in the He-
brew Bible. In the religious and military experience of Israel, the perception of God as warri-
or was of paramount importance. Israel believed that their wars were in fact "the wars of
Yahweh", seeing that Ancient Near Eastern deities fought wars to maintain or reinforce their
positions in the divine pantheons. Early Israelite poetry incorporates visions of Yahweh the
Warrior. In Psalm 68 Yahweh is portrayed with his "heavenly chariotry and entourage". In
various poetic material the glorious deeds of Yahweh, the Warrior, are vividly described. Is-
rael's perception of Yahweh being a Divine Warrior dominated their faith. This concept of
Yahweh was possibly also linked to the idea of Yahweh as King. The ancient world often rep-
resented the king as the deity's human war leader; it was the deity's responsibility 'to secure
royal victory in battle'. 1062 Battles between Ancient Near Eastern nations were comprehended
as battles between patron gods, leading to the ideology of a "holy war". Celestial beings that
formed Yahweh's entourage and fought his battles signified the "hosts", in the title "Lord of
Hosts". God's honour and Israel's salvation in battle were closely connected.
Israel undoubtedly had a pre-battle rite. It was common practice for a priest or prophet to de-
termine beforehand whether Yahweh approved the attack or not. Horns – as a liturgical
1057
See discussions in § 2.4, § 2.5 and § 2.6.
1058
See § 4.3.4.
1059
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; Habakkuk 3:3.
1060
Knauf 1999a:677.
1061
Miller 1973:1.
1062
Lang 2002:49.
216
device – were used, in some instances, before a battle. Horns symbolised divine strength that
brought about victory. The enthronement of a king included the ritual handing over of a spe-
cial weapon, which was perceived as the weapon of the warrior god.
The concept "hosts of heaven" originated from the metaphor of Yahweh as warrior. In combat
Yahweh was assisted by warriors and an army. The "hosts of heaven" thus indicated the di-
vine assembly gathered around the heavenly King, Yahweh. The question arises whether any
distinction can be made between the "hosts of heaven" and the "divine council". The concept
of the assembly of the gods – or the divine council – was a common religious motif in the
Ancient Near East. In the Canaanite pantheon El and Asherah were acting as the highest au-
thorities. The actions of both divine and human beings were subject to the justice of El – who
was designated with wisdom and was also arbiter of justice. Psalm 82 condemns all members
of the divine council to death for abusing their offices. The constitution and function of the
divine assembly in the Israelite religion exhibit a similarity to the Canaanite and Phoenician
divine councils.
The designation Yahweh Sebaoth – twabc hwhy – meaning "hosts of heaven", "armies" or
similar depictions, is closely connected to the idea of the "holy war". This epithet can thus be
translated as "Lord of Hosts". It seems that this appellation was intimately linked to Zion and
the Temple – 'Yahweh Zebaoth was conceived as enthroned in invisible majesty on the cheru-
bim throne in the Solomonic Temple'. 1063
When the Assyrians became the might in the Ancient Near East, Aššur – their national god –
took the central place. To ease the substitution of major gods to Aššur in the dominant posi-
tion, he was identified with the Old Babylonian god Anšar, and thereby became the "Lord of
the gods". Aššur was above all a warrior god who accompanied the armies into battle. He
was mostly represented as a winged disc, or mounted on a bull, or floating through the air. A
well-known illustration shows him in a winged sun disc firing a bow. The sun disc was the
representation of a chariot travelling through the sky. It is significant that Aššur, as warrior
god, was also portrayed with the attributes of the storm god (Adad) and of the solar god
(Shamash). It seems, therefore, that he was at the same time warrior, solar and storm god.
The god Aššur was considered the deified city Assur, which was built on a holy spot of pre-
historic times.
1063
217
Astral deities were not an unfamiliar phenomenon for the ancient Israelites. A number of ref-
erences in the Hebrew Bible indicate that Yahweh is Lord of the sun, moon and stars. The
epithet "Lord of hosts" could intimate that Yahweh was in command of all the stars. The
Babylonian deity Marduk divided the constellations of the zodiac and months of the year
among the great gods. The constellations became the objects of a religious cult. In the He-
brew Bible astral cults were prohibited. At a later stage, within the Judaic culture, zodiacal
constellations were widely promoted. Mosaic floors of several synagogues of the Roman and
Byzantine periods portray zodiac symbols, illustrating 'an ancient Israelite tradition of retain-
ing elements of pagan sun worship in their own worship'. 1064 The compositions on the pave-
ments in Palestinian synagogues represent the twelve signs of the zodiac arranged around He-
lios – the Greek solar god – who was always in the centre of the composition in the chariot of
the sun; Yahweh is usually portrayed in a chariot of clouds. Helios, in solar worship, was
venerated mainly by individuals.
In the Masoretic Text, the word Shemesh – XmX – does not actually reflect a divine name.
The Canaanite solar cult is, however, revealed in place names, such as Beth-shemesh. 'The
lack of evident traces of solar worship in Hebrew anthroponomy seems to indicate that the
cult of the sun was not very popular in Syria-Palestine in the Iron Age, contrary to Egypt and
to Mesopotamia.'1065 The astral bodies were apparently venerated during the reigns of the
Judean kings Manasseh and Amon. Scholars therefore theorise that the Assyrian astral cult
was enforced upon Judah as a symbol of vassalage. Taylor 1066 suggests that the Israelites did
indeed consider the sun as an icon or symbol of Yahweh. The horse on the Taanach stand 1067
and its sun disc are reminiscent of 'the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun,
at the entrance to house of the Lord … and he [Josiah] burned the chariots of the sun with
fire'. 1068 The sun's chariot was Yahweh's vehicle. The ancient idea of a chariot of the sun was
born from the perception that the sun is a wheel turning through the heavens – as attested by
the legend of Elijah being carried up to the heaven in a chariot and horses of fire. 1069 Lipiń-
sky1070 argues that 'there can be little doubt that the sun was conceived in biblical times as a
vivid symbol of Yahweh's Glory'. Shamash – Shemesh – in Mesopotamian solar mythology
instructed the righteous in wisdom, and was specifically associated with concepts like justice,
1064
Taylor 1994:61.
1065
Lipińsky 1999:765.
1066
Taylor 1994:53-54, 58.
1067
See § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach".
1068
2 Kings 23:11.
1069
2 Kings 2:11-12; 6:15, 17.
1070
Lipińsky 1999:766.
218
time and life – themes found in the book of Qohelet. In this book the "sun imagery" appears
frequently in the phrase "under the sun", suggesting possible allusions to solar symbolism and
mythology.
The ancient peoples – who were aware of the link between the phases of the moon and the
tides – interpreted the moon as being responsible for the water supply to the fields and all liv-
ing entities. Therefore the lunar deity, apart from being illuminator of the night, was regarded
as a fertility god. This aspect was reflected in the powerful and virile bull – particularly in the
similarity between the bull's horns and the so-called "horns" of the "new" moon, symbolising
the cycle of nature. Yrh – xry – the most common biblical Hebrew word for "moon" or
"moon god" appears close to thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. and terms describing the
lesser astral bodies – the stars, constellations or "hosts of heaven" – were often grouped to-
gether. The terminology "hosts of heaven" in the Hebrew Bible was, at the same time, indica-
tive of the inclusion of all luminaries. According to the Deuteronomist, astral cults in Judah
increased significantly during the seventh to sixth centuries BC.
In the Mesopotamian tradition the lunar deity was known by the name Nanna, Suen and Ash-
imbabbar. Suen, written as Sîn, is attested in lexical texts from Ugarit and Ebla. Documents
from Mari refer to Sîn of Haran. The "night luminaries" controlled the heavens as well as an
alien world. It represented the life cycle of birth, growth, decay and death. The cultic calen-
dar was determined by the movements of the moon, which was awarded a prominent place in
Mesopotamian myth and ritual. In the Assyro-Babylonian mythology the lunar deity occu-
pied the main position in the astral triad, with Shamash and Ishtar – the sun and the planet
Venus, respectively – as its children. Haran was the cult centre of Nanna/Sîn. The moon god
of Haran was considered by the Assyrians as a special patron to extend their boundaries. The
lunar emblem of Haran portrays the moon god in a boat. The symbol of a crescent on a pole
was common in southern Mesopotamia during the first half of the second millennium BC. In
both the history of ancient Mesopotamian religions and early Syrian traditions the lunar deity
enjoyed widespread popularity.
In the Ancient Near East stars were widely regarded as gods. Astrological references in the
Hebrew Bible are often hidden in the most ancient layers of the text. Babylonian astral divi-
nation was common among post-exilic Jews. It is, however, extremely problematic to identi-
fy the particular sources underlying the Yahwistic lunar symbolism. The births of the twins
Shagar (Morning Star) and Shalem (Evening Star) – offspring of Canaanite El and two
219
"women" he encountered at the seashore – are recounted in an important Ugaritic text, the hi-
eros gamos. Speculative connections link Shalem with the alleged cult of the Venus star in
Jerusalem and the cult of Melchizedek.
The etymology of the word, or name El, ’el, ’il(u) – meaning God/god – has not been deter-
mined conclusively. ’Ilu, as an appellative for deities, has been attested in Ancient Mesopo-
tamia, as well as in Ugaritic texts. In these texts El is denoted as a distinct deity, who – to-
gether with Asherah – held the highest authority in the Syro-Palestinian mythology. Several
epithets describe El as father, creator, the "ancient one" or the "eternal one". Despite El's im-
plied importance in Ugarit, the Ugaritic Ba‛al texts indicate El's passive and ineffectual be-
haviour. Yet, gods were powerless to undertake any assignment without his permission.
There are indications in various mythological texts that Ba‛al – who actively rose to kingship
– probably dethroned the older and less virile El in order to secure this position. External evi-
dence involving the strife between El and Ba‛al is based mainly on parallels in comparative
mythological material. The assembly of the gods was a familiar religious theme in the An-
cient Near Eastern cultures; the divine council of El – the assembly of gods – is attested in the
Ugaritic myths. The bull – a designation of El – is a metaphor expressing his divine dignity
and strength.
The relationship between the God of Israel (Elohim) and the Canaanite god El is to a great
extent centred upon the religion of the patriarchs. The religious traditions in the patriarchal
narratives of Genesis distinguish two types of reference to the deity: "God of the fathers" –
which links the god to an ancestor – or a full formula, "The God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, the God of Jacob". The deity, identified by the name of the clan, was thus worshipped
by those families. Biblical Elohim, as well as Yahweh, portrays many features that could pos-
sibly have been derived from Canaanite El.
As indicated in discussions in this chapter, deities with cognate – and often similar – names
appeared in several pantheons. In concordance herewith, different attributes merged in par-
ticular deities. Contact between the Israelite nation and the other Ancient Near Eastern peo-
ples resulted therein that all the features of the various deities were later conferred upon the
Hebrew God. Attributes of biblical Elohim and Yahweh – as depicted in the Hebrew Bible –
have been summarised from a selection of relevant texts.
220
It is apparent from an analysis of this synopsis that, apart from all the other characteristics as-
sociated with Yahweh, the Israelites perceived him predominantly as a Storm, Warrior and
Solar God. In this regard there is a resemblance with the Assyrian warrior god Ashur, who
was also identified as storm god and solar god. Both Yahweh and Elohim are portrayed in the
Hebrew Bible as Creator and Father – epithets that are linked to Canaanite El. Biblical texts
cite overwhelming references to Yahweh as "Lord of Hosts"; celestial beings – who formed
Yahweh's entourage and fought his battles – signify the "hosts" in this title. Both Yahweh and
Elohim are indicated in the texts as Shepherd, King and Redeemer. Matters concerning "jus-
tice" and "righteousness" mainly refer to Yahweh. The Hebrew God was a wise administrator
and legislator in the eyes of the Israelite scribes. Ancient Syrian mythology could be recog-
nised in the tradition of a wise creator deity. Lang1071 suggests that relevant evidence for the
wise God and wisdom goddess is found in the Book of Proverbs.
The Hebrew Bible occasionally applies a female metaphor to describe Yahweh or Yahweh's
actions. Attributing female roles and metaphors to "male" deities was not an unknown con-
cept in the Ancient Near East. The lack of gender language for Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible
could be attributed to the avoidance of anthropomorphic imagery for Yahweh. Some scholars
– such as Stone1072 – allege that a goddess was venerated at the very beginnings of religion,
and it therefore signifies that 'God was a woman'. Implicit references to androgyny in the He-
brew Bible are found in Job 38,1073 Isaiah,1074 and particularly in Genesis 1:27. In their con-
cept of God the Israelites ascribed an anthropomorphic nature to God.
The appearance of the name Yahweh, Yahweh Elohim, or Elohim in the Hebrew Bible de-
pends on a particular tradition and, in some instances, possibly on the preference of the redac-
tor. Scholars have noted apparent differences in the use of Yahweh or Elohim in the Psalter.
Numerous appearances of the Tetragrammaton in the so-called Elohistic Psalter cannot be
overlooked. Various theories have been proposed by scholars to resolve this occurrence.
Hossfeld and Zenger1075 are of the opinion that the 'purpose-fully used name for God, YHWH,
is not indicative of a secondary redaction, but an expression of theological thinking that typi-
cally reveals itself only as a theological tendency in these texts'.
1071
Lang 2002:24-26.
1072
Stone 1979:120, 123-124.
1073
Job 38:28-29.
1074
Isaiah 42:14; 49:15; 66:12-13.
1075
221
Legendary and mythical matter forms an integral part of the Hebrew Bible, and was thus also
a fundamental component of the Yahwistic religion of the Israelites. As discussed in previous
paragraphs in this chapter, it is evident that the Israelites – in their concept and practising of
their religion, be it in their veneration of Yahweh or of other deities – were basically influ-
enced by surrounding cultures and religions. It is therefore inevitable that myths and legends
of their neighbours affected traditions documented in the Masoretic Text. Many legends in
the Hebrew Bible developed to account for anomalies in the biblical text. Familiar ancient
legends were recast and edited by later redactors. Some biblical narratives could, therefore,
be clarified by comparing them with parallels from those nations with whom they were con-
tinuously in contact. As an historical source, the Hebrew Bible is to a large extent unreliable.
The creation narratives in Genesis, and particularly the sequential Garden of Eden chronicle,
have various parallels and comparable themes in the Ancient Near Eastern literature. Crea-
tion myths primarily describe the cosmic struggle and ensuing battle with chaos monsters,
subsequently establishing world order. Well-known creation myths are the Akkadian text of
the Enuma Elish – or Epic of Creation – and the Sumerian Eridu Genesis. The Ugaritic Ba‛al
cycle myth is compared with Yahweh's battle with the sea monsters. A mythological back-
ground appears everywhere in the Garden of Eden narrative, with symbols derived from an-
cient religious traditions. Some scholars believe that the Sumerian myth – Enki and Ninhur-
sag – about the loss of paradise is a parallel to the loss of the Garden of Eden. Corresponding
themes include the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of Knowledge".
Three major flood chronicles that have survived are the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Atra-Hasis
Epic and the Sumerian flood story; the latter is recorded in the Sumerian King List. In each of
the three narratives the counterpart of Noah – Utnaphistim, Atra-Hasis and Ziusudra, respec-
tively – is forewarned of an impending massive flood intended to destroy mankind. All three
survive in a boat. Archaeological finds at the Mesopotamian cities Kish and Ur revealed ma-
jor flood deposits, dated ca 3300 BC. It is apparent that, apart from a few cities on high
mounds, everything in the Delta would have been wiped out.
The account of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9, is represented in a Sumerian equivalent.
The birth legend of Sargon the Great – founder of the Dynasty of Akkad – is preserved in the
Autobiography of Sargon. There is an unmistakeable parallel between this birth legend and
that of Moses. A Sumerian account of Sargon's rise to power mentions that his ascendency
222
was foretold to him in a dream. This legend is reminiscent of the dreams of Joseph in Genesis
37 – the sheaves in the field bowed before his sheaf, and the sun, moon and eleven stars
bowed down to him.
Batto1076 mentions that, although biblical revelation frequently revolved around historical
events, it should be recognised that myth – even more that history – served as an agency of
biblical revelation. The Hebrew writer probably appropriated familiar mythological motifs,
adapted into an original story of his own. The primary purpose of narratives being to convey
a message therefore renders them independent of historical accuracy.
With regard to discussions in this chapter, particularly concerning the widespread appearance
of the same or cognate deities, as well as the analyses of attributes associated with Yahweh, it
is clear that the different Ancient Near Eastern communities had a significant influence on the
Israelite nation – specifically with reference to their religion.
My theory, that a semblance of Ya-veneration in various areas of the Ancient Near East was
possible – and maybe even probable – is substantiated by the outcome of the earlier delibera-
tions in this chapter. Similarly to the appearance of an Asherah/Athirat-type deity in different
pantheons, a Ya-type deity may have been venerated by numerous peoples. In this regard, see
the discussions in paragraph 4.3. According to the Kenite hypothesis – as discussed in Chap-
ter 5 – the Kenites, as well as the Midianites, had worshipped Yahweh before Moses and the
Israelites became acquainted with him. Being nomad metalworkers, the Kenites and other
marginal groups connected to them – genealogically or by intermarriage – had the opportunity
to travel over large areas, and even relocate, thereby spreading their religious beliefs. A reli-
gion, similar to their Yahweh-veneration, could thus have emerged elsewhere.
The various ancient deities were normally linked to a particular attribute. As the previous
discussions indicate, storm and warrior characteristics were often observed in the same deity.
In some instances the deity also exhibited solar traits. A summary of the attributes associated
with either Yahweh or Elohim, as depicted in a selection of biblical texts, clearly indicate that
Yahweh was notably regarded as a Warrior God, as well as a Storm God and Solar God. The-
se, in addition to all the other different attributes of the various deities, culminated into the
Being of Yahweh. He was probably venerated by the individual Israelite tribes in accordance
1076
Batto 1992:102.
223
with a particular characteristic. Knowledge of the Israelites' perception of Yahweh assists me
to reach a conclusion regarding my hypothesis on the development of Yahwism.
In the chapter hereafter the origin, analysis and interpretation of the name YHWH are re-
viewed. These deliberations are closely connected to the Being of Yahweh, into whom all the
attributes of ancient deities have culminated. A number of extra-biblical finds, concerning
possible Ya-related religious practices, are briefly discussed in the following chapter. A re-
view of these finds substantiates my theory that it is conceivable that such a form of worship
was indeed practised.
Map 1 and Map 2 appear on the next two pages, respectively indicating places connected to
the designation Asherah/Atirat and cognate names, and places linked to the manifestations of
the Queen of Heaven.
224
Map 1. Occurrence of the name Asherah or related forms 1077
1077
The map indicates places connected to the designation Asherah/Atirat, as well as areas and cognate names
linked to this deity. Asherah/Atirat and analogous goddesses are discussed in paragraph 3.2.1. The different
epithets are denoted in italics.
225
Map 2. Manifestations of the Queen of Heaven / planet Venus1078
1078
The map indicates places connected to manifestations of the Queen of Heaven, attested in either epigraphic
finds or other references. The different designations of the Queen of Heaven – as denoted in italics on the map –
are discussed in paragraph 3.4.
226
CHAPTER 4
NAME YHWH AND RELATED FORMS
4.1 Introduction
It is obvious in the portrayal of Yahweh in the Masoretic Text that the various attributes and
characteristics of the numerous Ancient Near Eastern deities – as discussed in the previous
chapter – were conferred on him. In the following deliberation – in Chapter 5 – on the origin
of Yahweh and Yahwism, it is clear that El also played a significant role in the Israelites' in-
terpretation of their religion – particularly in the case of the patriarchs and northern tribes.
This was probably due to their knowledge of Canaanite El, the deity who was also comment-
ed on in the previous chapter.
According to tradition, the exodus group – liberated from Egypt – were the first Israelites to
become acquainted with Yahweh. Although there is no information on their pre-Yahwistic
religion, they probably had their own family gods and took part in the worship of Semitic or
Egyptian regional gods. This group's special contact with Yahweh and subsequent sojourn
through the Wilderness brought about a unique relationship. The question remains, however,
who this god was and where he came from. 1
Moses was the first "Israelite" 2 to be confronted by Yahweh – a god who came from a territory
which did not form part of the later Israelite region. According to Exodus 3,3 Moses asked
this God his name and was told, 'hyha rXa hyha'.4 Janzen5 states that a name embodies its
actual history and future. Thus, regarding the name of Israel's God, Yahweh, 'the biblical nar-
rative taken as a whole could be read as an explication of what is in the name Yahweh'. 6 The
Hebrews interpreted "name" as "character"; thus, to profess Yahweh's Name was to describe
his character.7 Exodus 3:13-15 unequivocally declares that the revelation of God under the
name Yahweh 'was fundamental to the theology of the Mosaic age'. 8 Divine names personify
the perception of the devotees of a particular deity. Therefore, the name of a deity normally
represents an epithet of that deity, although the meaning thereof had later mostly been
1
Albertz 1994:49.
2
According to tradition, as narrated in the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites did slave labour in Egypt; Moses was
born from so-called Israelite parents in Egypt. See § 5.4 on Moses.
3
Exodus 3:13.
4
Exodus 3:14, 'I AM WHO I AM'
5
Janzen 1979:227.
6
Janzen 1979:227.
7
Exodus 33:19.
8
Cole 1973:20.
227
forgotten. As a rule, the epithet was elicited from a characteristic or function of the deity, or
its relation to the tribe – or nation – or surroundings. 9 Some Ancient Near Eastern deities
were distinguished by the multiplicity of their names and titles. 10 To guard against the unwar-
ranted invocation of their names by devotees, certain deities had hidden or secret names. 11 As
divine names were sacred, and guarded against profane use, new designations were created
for regular practice.12 Names were symbolic to the ancient Israelites, as illustrated in the ety-
mologies13 of many Israelite names in the Hebrew Bible.14 The name of the Israelite God was
furthermore attached to a place, and this place was reserved for worship. The Deuteronomist
connected the name to the Jerusalem Temple. 15
The name of the Israelite God, hyha rXa hyha16 – as revealed to Moses – mostly appears in
the Hebrew Bible in the form of the Tetragrammaton,17 hwhy. Due to later reluctance to utter
this divine name, the correct pronunciation thereof is uncertain. 18 As the name is so closely
related to God, the misuse of the name is prohibited.19 A substitute title, !wda, was eventually
vocalised.20 As a general word for "lord", "master" or "owner", !wda was used, for instance,
by a servant for his master or by a subject for his king, while ynda – as a plural of intensity –
was used for God.21 MacLaurin22 indicates that "Adon", lord, as an epithet of Yaw, 23 can be
dated much earlier than what is recognised by scholars, and 'its substitution for YHWH in the
Bible may represent the revival of a very ancient tradition'. 24 God's name, Yahweh, has
9
Cohon 1950:579.
10
As an example, the fifty names of the Babylonian deity Marduk (see footnote on Marduk in § 2.14.6 and § 3.1)
in the Enuma Elish (see footnote in § 3.1) (Huffmon 1999a:610).
11
Huffmon 1999a:610.
12
Cohon 1950:579.
13
Etymology: see footnote in § 3.3.
14
Mowinckel 1961:125.
15
Coats 1993:18.
16
Exodus 3:14, 'I AM WHO I AM'.
17
The Tetragrammaton is the four consonant letters, YHWH, used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate the Israelite
God's name; pronounced Yahweh (Deist 1990:256).
18
From the time of the Hellenistic Period Jews were reluctant to pronounce the name of their God. When the
Masoretes laid down the pronunciation of the Name they vocalised the Tetragrammaton, which falsely lead to
the reading "Jehovah". On the basis of late antiquity transcriptions it is deduced that the correct pronunciation is
"Yahweh" (Albertz 1994:49-50). The Masoretes were medieval Jewish biblical scholars involved in the copying,
vocalisation and punctuation of the text of the Hebrew Bible, working in either Palestine or Babylon (Deist
1990:152).
19
Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:10-15.
20
Huffmon 1999a:611. Lord or !wda(’ādôn), ynda (’ādônāy). See Psalm 114:7 wherein hwla (God) is !wda
(the Lord); Genesis 15:2, hwhy ynda (my Lord, Yahweh).
21
Loewen 1984:206.
22
MacLaurin 1962:449-450.
23
See discussion of Yaw/Yw in § 4.3 on extra-biblical sources concerning related forms of the name Yahweh.
24
MacLaurin 1962:450.
228
virtually become 'an independent entity, separate from God'. 25 Cohon26 indicates that Judaism
endeavoured to 'discover the essential being and nature of God', thereby discovering his "true"
Name. By the application of names for deities, polytheistic religions differentiate these dei-
ties from one another, while monotheism – with its emphasis on the uniqueness of God –
needs no names to distinguish God from other deities. 27
In both Hellenistic and rabbinic Judaism, 'the recognition that God transcends all names is
paradoxically coupled in Jewish thought with the persistence to invoke Him by the right
name'. 28 In Hellenistic as well as rabbinic literature, the Tetragrammaton was substituted by
other names, due to the growing sense of God's transcendence. In the light of Leviticus
24:16, the rabbis encompassed the Tetragrammaton with 'awesome sanctity'. 29 The practice
of theurgic30 uses of the name – which was widely spread among the Jews – was opposed by
the rabbis. Despite rabbinic opposition Jewish people had a strong belief in the 'almighty po-
tency of the name'. 31 Gnostics32 applied the Tetragrammaton and other divine names for mag-
ic purposes. The rabbis advised that the "Name" existed next to God before creation. The
Kabbalists33 taught that creation came through the combination of letters in the Divine Name,
while, according to the Haggadah, 34 God delivered Israel from Egypt through a
25
Huffmon 1999a:611. The Name has therefore become a hypostasis (see footnote in § 3.2.2), although the cult
is offered in the "presence of the Lord", and not in the "presence of the name of the Lord". Notwithstanding the
Deuteronomist's conception that God cannot inhabit the Tabernacle or Temple in a polytheistic fashion, or be
present in a cult statue, he perceived that God's name or glory could be present in both the Temple and Tabernac-
le (Huffmon 1999a:611).
26
Cohon 1950:581.
27
Cohon 1950:583.
28
Cohon 1950:583.
29
Cohon 1950:583-584, 592.
30
Theurgy: magic performed with the aid of good spirits (Deist 1990:260).
31
Cohon 1950:592, 594.
32
Gnosticism was a philosophical and religious movement during the first to sixth centuries among Jews, and
particularly among Christians. Their philosophy taught 'that man is saved only by a special knowledge of God'
(Gnosis), and that the world could be saved only 'through the secret knowledge of the supreme Deity' (Deist
1990:105-106).
33
Kabbalah – or Cabbalah – is the Hebrew word meaning "tradition" (of hidden knowledge). Initially it referred
to the legal traditions of Judaism and later to the Jewish mystical tradition. The practice developed during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries and concentrated on the 'system of esoteric mystical speculation' (Blau 1980:3).
The Kabbalah was based on revelation in the Hebrew Bible; texts were interpreted by the application of different
hermeneutic techniques. The Zohar – the classic document of the Kabbalistic tradition – was compiled approxi-
mately 1290 (Blau 1980:3). Hermeneutics is a theoretical reflection on textual interpretation or on methods of
exegesis (Deist 1990:113).
34
Haggadah is a noun derived from the Hebrew root dgn, "to show", "to announce", "to tell" (Porton 1992:19).
As the narrative section of the Talmud (see footnote in § 3.2.2 on the Mishnah and the Talmud) it comprises an
anecdote or parable giving a free interpretation of the Law (Deist 1990:110). According to the concordance of
the Babylonian Talmud, Haggadah carries the meaning of utterance, giving evidence or testimony, biblical exe-
gesis or the non-legal section of rabbinic thought (Porton 1992:19). The Haggadah includes a brief description
of the exodus from Egypt, which is specifically read during the Passover service. In reply to the traditional four
questions recited by the youngest participant in the Passover, answers are read from this section (Isaacson
1979:85).
229
seventy-two-letter name. These imprudent speculations concerning the "Name" were looked
upon with disdain by the Rationalists.35 Maimonides36 considered 'the twelve lettered name37
inferior in sanctity to the Tetragrammaton'. 38
The Hebrew Bible refers to the Israelite God by a number of names, titles and epithets. The
way Israel thought about the "Name of God" was fundamentally not different to the way they
thought about human personal names, but, at the same time, within the context of the Ancient
Near Eastern world and its divinities. A name represented something beneficial. Knowledge
of a name had effective power, therefore, to know the name of a god – or a human being –
opened the possibility of appeal. Magic and incantations exploited this knowledge for manip-
ulation purposes. According to biblical tradition, Israel cultically appealed to God only by the
name "Yahweh". However, different non-Yahwistic divine names and titles were implement-
ed – as indicated in the Hebrew Bible – when referring to the Israelite God. 39 The conver-
gence of various groups40 from which Israel emerged, is reflected in the attributes and titles of
the Israelite God in the Hebrew Bible. El, the "creator-god" – as described in the Ugaritic
texts – reflects some expression of the late second millennium BC Canaanite religion. For
many polytheistic communities, El became a personal divine figure. He was an "internation-
al" character41 and head of the Ugaritic pantheon,42 therefore it could be expected that the
'term should be an element in many divine names'. 43 ~yhla44 – ’ĕlōhîm – is the word
35
Rationalism is the belief that human reason is the only source of true knowledge (Deist 1990:213).
36
Moses Maimonides – 'the profoundest religious thinker and intellect of his time' (Epstein 1959:208) – was
born in 1134 in Cordova. New masters of Spain forced Moses ben Maimon, a non-Moslem, to flee the country.
In Cairo he wrote his acclaimed Guide for the Perplexed, 'which laid the foundations for the entire development
of Jewish philosophy and remained the exemplar of reasoning faith even for those who could not follow Mai-
monides all along the line' (Epstein 1959:208). Maimonides (1134/5-1204) was the leader of the School of Ra-
tionalists (see footnote above). Much influenced by Greek philosophy, his main purpose was to forge a synthe-
sis between Jewish traditions and the Aristotelian philosophy (Oxford University Press 1987:1026). Aristotle
(384-322 BC) was a Greek philosopher who wrote numerous works, inter alia, on "logic" (invented by him) and
"rhetoric" (Oxford University Press 1964a:57).
37
The "twelve-lettered name" was supposedly composed [by the triplication] of the word hyha – in Exodus
3:14 – to yield twelve letters; these letters were used as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton (Cohon 1950:596-
597).
38
Cohon 1950:593, 595-597.
39
For example, El-Elyôn (God Most High, Gn 14:22), El-‛Olām (Everlasting God, Gn 21:33), Elohim (God, Job
38:7) (Rose 1992:1004-1007).
40
Israel came into being by the amalgamation of nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, as well as sedentary popula-
tions in regions of arable land (Rose 1992:1004).
41
Rose 1992:1004.
42
43
MacLaurin 1962:443.
44
’ĕlōhîm is a plural formation of ’elōah [hwla], an extended form of the Semitic noun ’il (Van der Toorn
1999b:352).
230
generally used for "God" in the Hebrew Bible with a variety of meanings.45 Apart from the
generic application of the word ’el, god, it developed as a proper name for the Hebrew God.
The Israelite perception of "God" shares many characteristics with the beliefs of its neigh-
bours.46
The author of Genesis 2147 treats the name El Olam – ~lw[ la – as a divine epithet for Yah-
weh. Until a number of decades ago most occurrences of El-titles in the patriarchal narratives
– such as El Olam – were observed by scholars as 'relics of divinities belonging to a pre-
Israelite or "proto-Israelite" – or at the very least, pre-Yahwistic – stratum of the history of
biblical religion'. 48 The El of Genesis was seen merely as an appellative. After the discovery
of the Ugaritic texts, this "El" was associated with the "creator god" of Ugarit. El Olam of
Beer-sheba49 is therefore presently regarded to be one of many local hypostases50 of the Ca-
naanite El, later identified with Yahweh.51 The appellative El roi – yar la – is attested only
once in the Hebrew Bible,52 and is probably a 'pseudo-archaic divine name inserted by a later
redactor'.53 Within this particular context, some scholars regard El-Roi as a form of El vener-
ated by the Abraham clan; however, other scholars are of the opinion that it was merely an
invention of the redactor.54 The word elyon – !wyl[ – means "to ascend". In the Hebrew Bi-
ble it is used either to describe something that is "spatially higher," or mainly as reference to
the "most high" deity. 55 The term in the Masoretic Text is generally understood to be an
45
'All the gods of Egypt' (Ex 12:12) refers to a plurality of deities, while the reference to a single being such as
"Chemosh is the ’ĕlōhîm of Moab" (1 Ki 11:33) is more frequently used; in the latter instance a plural of majesty
is employed (Van der Toorn 1999b:352-353).
46
Van der Toorn 1999b:353, 361. For a discussion of various characteristics of God, see Van der Toorn
(1999b:361-363).
47
Genesis 21:22-34 narrates Abraham's encounter with Abimelech – the Philistine king – at Beer-sheba. Ac-
cording to Genesis 21:33, Abraham 'called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God' ( ~lw[ la)
(De Pury 1999a:288). Genesis 21:32, 34 refer to the Philistines. These "Sea Peoples" settled on the Mediterra-
nean coast of Palestine only as late as approximately the twelfth century BC (Greenfield 1962:791-792). The
narrative clearly indicates a later tradition; Abimelech could not have been a Philistine king when encountered
by Abraham.
48
De Pury 1999a:288.
49
Genesis 21:33.
50
Hypostasis: see § 3.2.2. Deist and Du Plessis (1981:10-11) are of the opinion that each of the various clans –
who worshipped El during the Patriarchal Age – referred to El in a separate way. Within their own group they
spoke about "the God (El) of their fathers". Elsewhere this God was called either Elyon (Abraham clan), El
Shadday (Isaac clan) or El Olam (Jacob clan).
51
De Pury 1999a:288-289.
52
’Ēl ro’î, translated as god of vision or seeing, was the name given by Hagar to the divine messenger she en-
countered in the Wilderness (Gn 16:13). Genesis 16 gives a description of Sarah's pregnant maid, Hagar, who
retreated to the desert after Sarah had demanded her dismissal (De Pury 1999b:291).
53
De Pury 1999b:291.
54
De Pury 1999b:291-292.
55
In Psalm 89:27-28 the king is indicated. Elyon, as a divine name, appears in some instances on its own (Ps
9:2; Is 14:14), or in combination with other divine names – such as Yahweh or Elohim (Ps 7:17; 57:2; 73:11) –
and even in combination with lesser divine elements, such as in Psalm 82:6 (Elnes & Miller 1999:293).
231
epithet for Yahweh. Some scholars argue that this epithet 'may conceal a reference to a sepa-
rate deity, possibly an older god with whom Yahweh came to be identified'. 56 The name
Elyon is attested in Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic and Greek extra-biblical literature.57 Some
other epithets that refer to the Hebrew God are ydX,58 ryba,59 dxp60 and twabc.61 Loewen62
mentions that the singular form El – God – appears in isolation in a few expressions,63 but is
mostly seen in composite names, such as "God Almighty"64 and "God, the Most High".65 The
singular el, applied to other gods, does not appear in many places in the Masoretic Text. 66
Epigraphic finds attest that the Israelites not only adopted the language of the Canaanites, but
also the advanced religious culture and vocabulary.67
Moses' 'proclamation of a definite God, known to their ancestors68 as a deliverer, probably

represented an attempt by Moses to consolidate the Hebrew confederacy'. 69 MacLaurin70 is of
the opinion that the Hebrew priests and Levites, and maybe a number of community leaders,
used the "synthetic name", Yahweh, whereas the common people continued to refer to their
god as Adon Elohim, Yah and Hū’. The name Yahweh was probably introduced by scribes
into the text of the Hebrew Bible – beside existing divine names – during the seventh century
BC and exilic literary activity. Pre-exilic writers generally referred to Yahweh as divine
name, while post-exilic writers replaced the name by Elohim and Adonai.
4.2 Name YHWH: origin, analysis and interpretation of the designation YHWH
While tending his father-in-law's flock,71 Moses72 was confronted by God73 speaking from a
burning bush.74 When Moses requested God to let him know his Name, 'God said to Moses,
56
Elnes & Miller 1999:293.
57
Elnes & Miller 1999:294. For a discussion of the character and role of Elyon, see Elnes & Miller (1999:294-
298).
58
Shadday, Almighty; Exodus 6:3.
59
Abir, Mighty One; Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2, 5; Isaiah 49:26; 60:16.
60
Pah , fear; Genesis 31:42, 53.
61
Sebaoth, hosts; 1 Samuel 17:45. twabc hwhy illustrates Yahweh as "Lord of Hosts" in a position of power
and control. For a discussion of Shadday, Abir, Pah and Sebaoth, see Rose (1992:1005-1006, 1008-1009).
62
Loewen 1984:202-203.
63
Genesis 31:13, 'the God [El] of Bethel'; Numbers 12:13, 'O God [El] please heal her'.
64
El Shadday, ydX la.
65
El Elyon, !wyl[ la.
66
Deuteronomy 32:12; Judges 9:46; Isaiah 46:6.
67
Obermann 1949:318-319.
68
Exodus 6:3.
69
MacLaurin 1962:461.
70
MacLaurin 1962:448, 461. The name Yahweh would have been applied at least by the leaders; a ninth century
BC inscription on the Moabite Mesha Stele (see § 4.3.8) refers to Israel's God Yahweh.
71
Exodus 3:1.
72
For a discussion on Moses see § 5.4.
73
'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (Ex 3:6).
74
Exodus 3:2-5.
232
I AM WHO I AM.'75 For many decades scholars have been intrigued by this phrase,
"hyha rXa hyha", and have endeavoured to propose a plausible explanation for the word
hwhy, known as the Tetragrammaton.
Obermann76 indicates that for more than two thousand years the name of God has been re-
searched, with many resultant formulated speculations. From antiquity, until not so many
decades ago, the name was analysed mainly with the purpose to determine the subjective per-
ception thereof.77 In modern times scholars approach the problem from a philological 78 view-
point. An objective and historical inquiry is done concerning the morphologic 79 pattern, the
etymology80 of the word, and probable pronunciation. Reasonable consensus has been
reached amongst scholars regarding major aspects of the problem. Scholars deliberate that
the word "YHWH" originally 'denoted a descriptive appellation or an epithet of the God of
Israel, which in the course of time fell into oblivion'. 81 The word was pronounced Yahweh,
and not Jehovah as was initially believed on the basis of the vocalisation of the Masoretes.82
The word represents an imperfect finite verb, probably from the causative 83 stem formed from
the root hwy – "to be", "to exist" – possibly from a root related to - , "to live". The lat-
ter suggestion is supported on the basis of many instances in Semitic antiquity of divine
names which have developed from epithets. 84 It has been a custom among Hebrews to refer
to their God by way of various appellations. 85 A shortcoming in the postulation of the word
YHWH being an imperfect finite verb – thus, as of necessity, an imperfect verb of the third
person – is the problem of the formula hwhy yna86 which appears frequently in the Masoretic
Text. This sentence embodies a third person imperfect verb with a first person pronoun as
75
Exodus 3:14, hyha rXa hyha.
76
Obermann 1949:301.
77
The subjective perception of the Name entails discovering the 'religious and theological conveyance to the
worshipers' as manifested in the Hebrew Bible (Obermann 1949:301).
78
Philology is 'the scholarly study of written records with a view to establishing, in each case, the best reading of
the text and the meaning of that best reading' (Deist 1990:192).
79
Morphology: the study of form; the study of the distribution and function of the structural linguistics (language
units) of one or more languages, and of grammatical rules that relate units of meaning to units of sound (Deist
1990:162).
80
Etymology, see relevant footnote in § 3.3.
81
Obermann 1949:302.
82
See "Masoretes" in a footnote on the vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes in § 4.1. The Mas-
oretes combined the consonants of the Tetragrammaton with the vocals of ’ǎdōnāy; the of ’ǎdōnāy
became a shewa, because of the yodh of yhwh (Van der Toorn 1999e:910).
83
A causative verb expresses a cause (Wehmeier 2005:224).
84
Names of Ancient Near Eastern deities that have developed from appellatives are such as Shamash, Baʽal, El,
Milkom (Obermann 1949:302).
85
Names, referring to the Hebrew God, that were frequently used are such as ʽelyôn (Most High), šaddai (Al-
mighty), rôkeb ’ šāmayim (Rider of the Heavens) and yôšēb hak-kĕrûbîm (Dweller on the Cherubim) (Obermann
1949:302).
86
hwhy yna, ’anî yahwê – I am the LORD – examples of this formula in the Masoretic Text are, Exodus 6:6, 7,
8, 29; 7:5, 17; 12:12; 14:4, 18; 15:26; 16:12; Numbers 3:13, 41, 45.
233
subject, an unattainable construction. The scribe of Exodus 3:14 could have endeavoured to
solve the problem by 'transposing the alleged third person into a corresponding form of the
first person'.87 The dilemma has been extenuated to some extent by the discovery of two
Phoenician inscriptions.88 These inscriptions are written in the form of a monologue 89 – the
subject invariably employs the first person singular pronoun in combination with a third per-
son finite verb. Scholars suggest that the inscriptions deal with an infinitiv absolutus, and not
a finite verb. However, Obermann90 is of the opinion that in both instances the participle plus
pronoun have been applied. Therefore a sentence, similar to hwhy yna, was used in the Phoe-
nician inscriptions without involving a finite verb or a third person. He furthermore suggests
that, whatever 'the structure analysis of the new pattern [in the Phoenician inscriptions] might
be, it puts the name of the God of Israel in an entirely new light', 91 as it is unlikely that legiti-
mate phrases in Old Phoenician were unknown in ancient Hebrew. 92 The name YHWH was
probably an ancient epithet of the God of Israel, capable of conveying a threat, promise, warn-
ing or hope.93
Freedman and O'Connor94 point out that an important biblical tradition links the Tetragram-
maton – the personal name of God – to Moses. The correct pronunciation of this name prob-
ably disappeared from Jewish tradition during the Middle Ages. During the Second Temple
Period it was regarded unspeakably holy and therefore not suitable for public readings; it con-
tinued, however, to be used privately. Modern scholars try to recover the pronunciation and
generally agree that the word is pronounced "Yahweh". Freedman95 argues that YHWH is a
verb derived from the root hwy>hwh, appearing in biblical Hebrew as hyh, which is in agree-
ment with recognised linguistic laws. He likewise analyses YHWH as a hif‛il96 imperfectum
third person masculine singular form of the verb, translated as 'he causes to be, he brings into
existence, he brings to pass, he creates'. 97 Apart from the Tetragrammaton,
87
Obermann 1949:303.
88
Two Phoenician inscriptions have been uncovered during excavations at Karatepe in southern Anatolia [mod-
ern Turkey in ancient Asia Minor] (Obermann 1949:301).
89
The king – recounting his many achievements, which were to the benefit of his kingdom and subjects – con-
sistently applied the first person pronoun "I" (Obermann 1949:303).
90
Obermann 1949:303.
91
Obermann 1949:304. See Obermann (1949:303-304) for a discussion of the Phoenician inscriptions.
92
Obermann 1949:304.
93
Obermann 1949:307-308.
94
Freedman & O'Connor 1986:500.
95
Freedman 1960:151.
96
Hif‛il is the causative form of the verb. Freedman (1960:152) argues that this viewpoint – as advanced in the
relevant paragraph to which this footnote refers – is in accordance with Exodus 3:13-15 which 'directly associ-
ates the Tetragrammaton with the root hyh', although YHWH is vocalised as a qal – instead of a hif‛il – in the
Masoretic Text. The qal-formation of the verb describes an action or a condition.
97
Freedman 1960:152.
234
extended forms of the name of God98 are present in Exodus. In an attempt to determine the
original structure of the Name – as either the Tetragrammaton, or one or more of the extended
forms – Freedman99 observes that 'the term "name" itself is not a decisive criterion', 100 and
that YHWH was part of a longer expression. In the latter instance, second millennium BC
evidence of Ancient Near Eastern onomastics 101 'point unmistakably in this direction'. 102
Childs103 questions Freedman's arguments and points out that even on the assumption that the
name YHWH elicited originally from a proto-Semitic hif‛il – on the basis of extra-biblical
parallels – 'there is no clear evidence that in the biblical tradition this connection with the
hiphil was ever made'.
Mowinckel104 disagrees with Freedman's argument 105 that YHWH – as first and common el-
ement in short sentences – came forth as the abbreviated "Name" of God. Likewise, it is un-
founded to presume that Moses was the "inventor" of the Tetragrammaton. Although the
Priestly Source106 states that Moses was the first person to whom the name YHWH was re-
vealed, 107 the earliest Israelite historian – the Yahwist108 – implemented the name Yahweh as
early as the patriarchal narratives. Gianotti109 endorses Mowinckel's viewpoint indicating that
for the biblicist the 'name YHWH was known as early as the time of Enosh'.110 Regarding the
tension between early passages in the patriarchal narratives referring to Yahweh, 111 and the
declaration in Exodus 6:2-3 – hundreds of years later – scholars have suggested to translate
the latter as follows, 'And God spoke to Moses, and said to him: I am Yahweh. And I showed
myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob in the character of El Shaddai, but in the character
expressed by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.' 112 It was thus 'the
character expressed by the name that was withheld from the patriarchs and not the name
98
Extended forms of the name of God are, for example, found in Exodus 3:13-15.
99
Freedman 1960:152.
100
The term "name" is applied equally to names – as we conceive the word "name" – and to titles and descriptive
formulas (Freedman 1960:152).
101
102
Freedman 1960:152. In this regard Freedman agrees with Albright (W F Albright 1948, in JBL 47, 377-381)
that the longer expressions are derived from a litany 'describing the covenant God in a series of affirmations be-
ginning with the word yahweh', which – as the first and common element in the series – was the "logical and
inevitable" abbreviation for the name of God (Freedman 1960:152).
103
Childs 1974:62-63.
104
Mowinckel 1961:121.
105
See discussion in previous paragraph.
106
See § 8.2 for a brief discussion of pentateuchal sources.
107
Exodus 6:2-3.
108
Known as the J-source. See § 8.2.
109
Gianotti 1985:38.
110
Genesis 4:26. Enosh was the son of Seth, the third son of Adam (Gn 4:25-26).
111
Passages such as Genesis 12:1, 4; 13:4.
112
Gianotti 1985:38.
235
itself'. 113 Mowinckel114 suggests that for Moses to legitimise himself and his God to the phar-
aoh and the Hebrew elders, he had to identify this god. He had to reveal the god's cult
name. 115 The common "I am …" epiphany formula was used throughout the Ancient Near
East. Therefore, for the God of Moses to introduce himself, he did so by means of the tradi-
tional formula "I am …". Yet, instead of declaring, "I am Yahweh" an explanation of the
name is given. According to Exodus 3:14, the deeper meaning of the name of God was re-
vealed to Moses.
The Yahwist School has 'found the essential feature of Yahweh's nature expressed. He is the
god who "is", hāyā in the fullest meaning of the word'.116 For the Hebrews the verb hāyā –
"to be" – does not just mean "to exist", but indicates, "being active". Seitz 117 is of the opinion
that, although Exodus 6:3 indicates that Moses was the first person to whom God made his
proper Name known, while the Name has been narrated as early as "the time of Enosh" –
Genesis 4:26 – we are clearly dealing with different "authorial voices". The narrator of the
Genesis stories obviously 'operates with full knowledge of the divine name, as do his readers,
and therefore is not bothered by what, from a historical perspective, is the introduction of an
anachronism'. 118 Seitz119 draws the conclusion that the Masoretic Text was never concerned
with historical time, therefore, the Name that was hypothetically unknown could be dramati-
cally "revealed". There is no explanation for the appearance of the Tetragrammaton as early
as Genesis 2:4.
Mowinckel120 disputes the explanation of the Tetragrammaton – as accepted by many scholars

– being a hif‛il imperfectum third person masculine singular of the verb hāyā<hāway. The
idea of "he who brings into existence" or "causes to be" is too abstract and philosophical re-
garding a "primitive" pre-Mosaic age. He furthermore indicates that in ancient Semitic no-
menclature a name containing a verbal construct – whether imperfectum of perfectum –
would always be in the abbreviated form. The full form contained a subject of the verb,
which indicated some designation of the god. To his knowledge, no divine name in the an-
cient Semitic world consisted of a verb only.
113
Gianotti 1985:38.
114
Mowinckel 1961:122-127.
115
In a society with a polytheistic background, to know a particular god required of devotees to know the name
of that god (Mowinckel 1961:122).
116
Mowinckel 1961:127.
117
Seitz 1999:161.
118
Seitz 1999:147.
119
Seitz 1999:150.
120
Mowinckel 1961:128-129.
236
Mowinckel121 finds it 'neither convincing nor probable' that yah was the original form of the
name Yahweh – as suggested by some scholars. The later yô-, as first element in theophoric 122
names, can only be explained as a contraction of yā(h)u; the original form of such names
therefore being yāhu-.123 Mowinckel124 thus states that, in his opinion, 'the form Yahu is older
than Yahwa/æ', as Yahwa/æ is never found as the first element of theophoric names. The only
evidence of the form yahwa/æ (yhwh) older than those in the fifth century BC Neo-
Babylonian transcriptions125 is the name yhwh on the Mesha Stele.126
Goitein,127 on the other hand, is of the opinion that the name Yāh – a primordial word – is
older than Yahweh, and in all likelihood, was administered also outside Israel. It was there-
fore necessary that a new and distinctive name for the God of Israel became known. The
Name, interpreted as yahwā – the imperfectum of hwy – developed from the duplication of
Yāh.128 The Name means 'the One who loves passionately and helps those that worship Him,
while, at the same time, demanding exclusive devotion to Himself.' 129 Goitein130 furthermore
mentions the plausibility of Moses being the first to pronounce the name Yahweh.
Walker 131 agrees with Goitein that Yāh was an older divine name132 from which Yahweh de-
veloped – thus being an extended form of Yāh; and, being so, excludes the possibility of hwhy
being a third person imperfectum, or even a participle. With a few exceptions, ancient divine
names were names of natural forces or objects, such as the solar god or lunar god. It is there-
fore less than likely that Yāh was an exception. The moon god Yārēah was venerated in Ca-
naan from Neolithic times. In Egypt the moon god I- -H is mentioned in the Pyramid texts
and in the sixteenth century BC Book of the Dead. Theophoric personal names have been
121
Mowinckel 1961:129-131.
122
See footnote on "hypocoristicon" and "theophoric names" in § 2.3.
123
The suggestion that the original yāhu- was later contracted into yô-, is demonstrated by the contraction of
yhw- to yw- in names such as Yahunatan>Jonatan and Yahuyada>Yoyada. The initial yāhu- and yô- and final
elements –yāhu and –ya in compound names, are supported by Assyrian transcriptions yaǔ-, ya- and -yâu, -yaǔ
and –ya, as well as fifth century BC Neo-Babylonian transcriptions yahû-, yâhu- and yâhû- (Mowinckel
1961:130).
124
Mowinckel 1961:130-131.
125
See earlier footnote in this paragraph.
126
See § 4.3.8 for a brief discussion of the Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone.
127
Goitein 1956:1-9.
128
Goitein 1956:9.
129
Goitein 1956:9.
130
Goitein 1956:9.
131
Walker 1958:262-265.
132
Yāh is more than an abbreviation of Yahweh, and occurs in the Masoretic Text as an ancient divine name.
Examples are, in "The song of Moses" (Ex 15:2) – 'My strength and my song is Yāh'; in the ancient "Oath of
Moses" (Ex 17:16) – 'Hand to the throne of Yāh'; and in a likely Davidic fragment in Psalm 68:19 [Ps 68:18 in
the ESV], 'That Yāh God might dwell (there)' (Walker 1958:262).
237
found with I- -H and later with only I-H. These signs correspond to the Semitic aleph and
yodh. Moon, as Y-H, has been found only when modified into Yāh. Walker 133 suggests that
YH of the Tetragrammaton comes directly from the Egyptian I-H – being Yah –while WH is
an added epithet. An established custom in Egypt gave the epithet "One", Egyptian "W-", to a
supreme deity. He therefore surmises 'that, whether through Semitic or through Egyptian, the
Kenite "Yāh"134 became "Yah-weh", meaning "Yah-One", with tacit monotheistic implica-
tion'.135 For the Israelites in Egypt another god with the added epithet "One" would have sig-
nified little. To suggest the superiority of Yahweh over all other gods, an added interpretation
of the Name was therefore necessary. During his sojourn with the Kenites, Moses doubtlessly
became aware of the similar sounding "Yahweh" and the Egyptian "I-W-I", "I am", with pos-
sible vocalisation "IaWeI", "Yawey". If God's Name is "I AM", he is the One who exists and
is powerful. Yahweh is therefore equated to Egyptian "Yahwey", translated into Hebrew
’Ehyeh – hyha – "I AM". In effect Moses thus changed the etymology of "Yahweh" 'in the
spiritual interests of enslaved Israel. … Ex 3 14 does not assert that God's name is "HE IS",
"Yihyeh", but that it does positively assert that God's name is "I AM", "EHYEH".'136
Mowinckel137 suggests that, to ascertain the original meaning of the name Yahu, an explana-
tion of the name Ya-huwa should be explored. Ya was a well-known Arabic interjection, and
huwa the third person masculine personal pronoun, "Oh, He". In this instance "He" is a des-
ignation of God, as attested among the Hebrews in the personal name ’Abihu. 138 Ya- could be
an abbreviated form of yahu, and if hu’ is the personal pronoun, the name Yahu could mean,
"Yahweh is He". The God concerned could therefore be spoken of as "He", the mystical "He"
whose essence and being we cannot see and understand. Mowinckel 139 presents the possibil-
ity that prehistoric ancestors of the North Sinaitic tribes called the god of Qadesh-Sinai, "He".
During an annual feast these tribes celebrated for this god, the worshippers met their god with
the cultic cry "Oh He" – ya-huwa. This cry of exclamation and invocation gradually became
a symbolic designation, and eventually his name. Divine names, which have originated else-
where from cultic exclamations, have been attested. In accordance with the abbreviation
133
Walker 1958:264-265.
134
See § 5.3 for a discussion of the Kenite hypothesis.
135
Walker 1958:264.
136
Walker 1958:265.
137
Mowinckel 1961:131-132.
138
Scholars generally agree that proper names containing ’abi as first element, are theophoric names (see foot-
note in § 2.3 on hypocoristicon and theophoric names). The name ’abi ’el therefore being "(My) Father is (the)
God", ’abiyah(u), "My Father is Yahweh", and ’Abihu could thus only be interpreted as "(My) Father is He". See
Exodus 6:23; 24:1 for reference to Abihu (Mowinckel 1961:131).
139
Mowinckel 1961:132-133.
238
huwa into hu – third person masculine personal pronoun – yahuwa could be abbreviated into
yahu. The abbreviation yahu appears regularly as first and final element of compound theo-
phoric personal names. During the festival for the god, when the worshippers would exclaim
the coming of the god, it could be that the first syllable of the name was stressed: yáhuwa,
yáhuwa! The abbreviated form yahwa could thus easily be explained from such an accentua-
tion.
Abba140 agrees that the Arabic huwa was probably the original Semitic form of the pronoun
"he"; therefore, the original cultic cry would be ya-huwa. There are indications that the name
Yahweh is extremely ancient, acquiring new significance during the exodus. In the archaic
form the w [in hwh] was retained but later replaced by y – as in the verb hyh with which the
name is connected. This modification took place long before the time of Moses. Cognate
languages retain the w; it could thus be intimated that the Tetragrammaton emanated from a
time when Hebrew was close to kindred languages. The revelation given to Moses was there-
fore not 'the revelation of a new and hitherto unknown name; it was the disclosure of the real
significance of a name long known'. 141 Exodus 3 explicitly connects the verb hwh – an archa-
ic form of hyh – with Yahweh.
According to Eerdmans,142 the Name was a symbol of thunder – a dreaded natural phenome-
non – and could even have been regarded as one of the elements of a thunderstorm. 143 He
mentions that 'this conception of the name as an onomatopoeia 144 of thunder points to a pro-
nunciation Ja-hu, with stress on the second syllable'. 145 It is also significant that a later formu-
la for praising the Lord was "Hallelu-jah" – thus containing the abbreviated Jah/Yāh and not
the Tetragrammaton.146
Brownlee147 mentions that the Hebrew slaves in Egypt may have been totally demoralised and
fully resigned to their bondage. They would not protest lest the oppressor intensified their
140
Abba 1961:322-324.
141
Abba 1961:323.
142
Eerdmans 1948:22-23.
143
See § 3.5 for a discussion of storm gods. Yahweh was attributed with, inter alia, storm god characteristics
(see § 3.8.1).
144
Onomatopoeia: the imitation of sounds, or words of which the sounds imitate the sounds produced by their
referents; the latter being a particular object to which attention is directed by means of the utterance of a word
(Deist 1990:178, 215).
145
Eerdmans 1948:22.
146
Eerdmans 1948:19. Examples of the abbreviated form hy are found in Psalms 77:12; 89:9; 102:19; Isaiah
38:11, and of hywllh in Psalms 106:1; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1; 135:1; 146:1; 147:20; 148:1; 149:1,9; 150:1,6.
147
Brownlee 1977:45.
239
hard labour. The revelation of God's Name to Moses, interpreted in the light of Exodus 3:12
– 'I will be with you' – brought the necessary assurance to the Hebrews that God would act.
'This understanding of the ineffable NAME may be directly relevant to a host of passages in
the Hebrew prophets, especially in the contexts of threats and promises, where "I am Yah-
weh", may appropriately mean, "I am he HE who makes things happen".' 148 Clements149 indi-
cates that the ancient people attached a special sanctity to the name of a deity, thereby being
able to invoke his aid. Knowledge of the Name of the Hebrew God intimated a privileged
relationship. The revelation of the divine Name to Moses served as an authentication to the
Hebrews in Egypt. Since the Hebrew verb "hwhy" could be taken either as present or as future
tense, this designation 'contains a strong overtone of future action'. 150
MacLaurin151 mentions that the traditional interpretation of hwhy is given on account of the
revelation hyha rXa hyha. Should this be a verbal form – as generally agreed – it would
require a first person singular verb in the qal formation, whereas the prefix in hwhy is a third
person, probably indicating a hif‛il. The root of the verb is hyh – "to be" – without any evi-
dence of ever being hwh. Some scholars recognise in the root of hwhy a cognate of the Ugarit-
ic-Assyrian root hwy, "to reveal, to proclaim"; a noun formed from this root is believed to be a
magical term. Thompson152 mentions that the causative of this verb does not occur elsewhere
in Hebrew, however, 'the name could be a unique or singular use of the causative stem'.
There is the possibility that priestly scribes played a role 'in obscuring the true meaning of the
sacred name'. 153 Innumerable attempts have been made to explain this Name, yet it is evident
'that the root of the word cannot be determined'. 154 Yahweh is not some prehistoric term, but a
sacred Name given to people in historic times. It is therefore 'unthinkable that the meaning, if
any, should have been lost with some obscure root which must be sought in the cognate lan-
guages'.155 The meaning was probably clear to all up till such time that tradition prevented
ordinary people to pronounce the Name – being too sacred, or that the pronunciation became
obsolete for some other reason. 156 Exodus 3:15 is obviously a reply to Moses’ question who
the God was who confronted him. The application in verse 14 of the first person singular of
148
Brownlee 1977:45.
149
Clements 1972:23.
150
Clements 1972:23.
151
MacLaurin 1962:440-442.
152
Thompson 1992:1011.
153
MacLaurin 1962:440.
154
MacLaurin 1962:441.
155
MacLaurin 1962:441-442.
156
MacLaurin 1962:442.
240
the verb "to be‖ is clearly a later interpolation explaining the divine name Yahweh. In the
original passage there was, therefore, no attempt to explain the meaning of Yahweh. In the
Hebrew Bible ’ehyeh – as reference to God – appears only once elsewhere, in the Book of
Hosea. The prophet Hosea is commanded to call his third son lō’-‛ammî – 'for you are not my
people and I am no ’ehyeh to you'. 157 Mayes158 points out that the basic formula describing
the covenant founded at Sinai is "You are my people, and I am your God". 159 The command
to Hosea is an undeniable declaration that the covenant is no longer in force. 'In formulating
the strict parallelism in the interpretative sentence Hosea uses a verbal form for the divine
name which is found only in Ex. 3.14.'160 This formulation could thus be read "I am not your
I-AM (’ehyeh)".
Driver161 endeavoured to collect all extra-biblical material relating to the Tetragrammaton162

to deduce thereby what the original form of the word was. He mentions that information in
the Masoretic Text is of little value due to a succession of redactional adaptations. The text
has probably been altered to suit the view of the editors. The question is whether the original
form of the Name was hwhy, why or hy; whether these forms are abbreviations of a longer form
or whether hwhy is the extended form of shorter forms. Scholars generally regard hwhy to be
163
the original name from which other forms were derived. The Moabite Stele confirms this
view to some extent. However, it is not viable to consider shorter forms – such as why and hy
– to be abbreviations of hwhy. No other Semitic group abbreviates the names of their gods
and it is unimaginable that a name as sacred as hwhy would be commonly abbreviated. Primi-
tive names given to deities are normally short and difficult to explain; 'their origin and mean-
ing are hidden in the mists of antiquity'. 164 The primitive Yā(w) or Yā(h) could thus have be-
come Yahwéh. The initial shorter forms were probably ejaculatory in origin, which could eas-
ily have been prolonged – when shouted in moments of excitement or ecstasy – to ya(h)wá(h),
ya(h)wá(h)y or similar forms. With the development of a new idea worshipping one national
God, the old name – under which he had been venerated as a tribal god, or one of many gods
– underwent a change. The original Yā, developing in elongated exclamatory forms, rapidly
became fixed in the imagination of the devotees as Yahweh and was ultimately treated as a
157
Phillips & Phillips 1998:82. Hosea 1:9.
158
Mayes 1969:29.
159
The covenant in more or less similar wording is found, for example, in Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Deuter-
onomy 26:17-18.
160
Mayes 1969:29.
161
Driver 1928:7, 22-25.
162
For information on the extra-biblical material relevant to the Tetragrammaton, see Driver (1928:7-22).
163
See § 4.3.8 for a brief discussion of the Moabite (or Mesha) Stele.
164
Driver 1928:23.
241
verbal form. The origin and denotation of the primitive name had been, without doubt, long
forgotten. It seems that in the early stages the Tetragrammaton was not as sacred never to be
uttered, although avoided in daily use. If it had not been so the author could not have been
acquainted with it.165
Gianotti166 evaluates various interpretations of the divine Name. He discusses the following
viewpoints: the "unknowable", the "ontological", 167 the "causative", the "covenantal" and the
"phenomenological". 168 Some scholars perceive the name Yahweh as manifesting the un-
knowable or incomprehensibility of God. The only passage in the Hebrew Bible which at-
tempts to explain the name Yahweh169 does not succeed – the Name remains a mystery. Other
scholars maintain that the name Yahweh in Exodus 3 'reveals God as the Being who is abso-
lutely self-existent, and who, in Himself, possesses essential life and permanent existence'. 170
This view – the ontological – is apparently based on the translation of Exodus 3:14 in the Sep-
tuagint.171 Gianotti172 regards the Septuagint as a "serviceable" human translation of the Pen-
tateuch by Jewish scholars – but not inspired. The primary discernment of Exodus 3:14
should be from a contextual comprehension of the passage, as well as an analysis of the
meaning and application of the term hwhy and its imperfectum, hyha. Gianotti173 reaches the
conclusion that Exodus 3:14 'does not support an "ontological" or "existence" view'. Propo-
nents of the causative174 view state that the word hwhy could be derived only from the verbal
root hwy – in the causative (hif‛il) and not the qal imperfectum. Gianotti175 objects to this
viewpoint and argues that phrases, such as ~yhla hwhy or hwhy hwhy,176 would be extremely
difficult to understand if hwhy was regarded as a hif‛il. According to the covenantal view, the
God of the Mosaic Covenant is seen in the name Yahweh. The repeated introductions – 'I am
Yahweh' – to the commandments, give credibility to this view. In the last instance, Gianotti177
discusses the phenomenological view. Advocates of this view interpret the divine Name
165
Driver 1928:24-25.
166
Gianotti 1985:40-48.
167
Ontology is a branch of philosophy with the aim to provide a theory of absolute being and existence. An on-
tological argument is an argument for 'the existence of God on the ground that the existence of the idea of God
necessarily involves the existence of God’ (Deist 1990:178).
168
Phenomenology is 'a method of philosophical inquiry concentrating on describing the essence of objects as
they present themselves to human consciousness' (Deist 1990:192).
169
Exodus 3:14-15.
170
171
See footnote in § 3.2.2 on the Septuagint.
172
Gianotti 1985:42.
173
Gianotti 1985:43.
174
See earlier footnote in this paragraph on "hif‛il".
175
Gianotti 1985:44.
176
Exodus 34:6.
177
242
Yahweh as meaning 'that God will reveal Himself in His actions through history'. 178 The cov-
enantal view is implicit herein. The occurrence of the name Yahweh in the second creation
narrative179 indicates God's active involvement from the beginning of history. The signifi-
cance of the imperfectum – hyha – thereby becomes clear; 'hyha is God's promise that He
will redeem the children of Israel.'180 The name Yahweh intimates God's particular relation-
ship with Israel in both his retributive acts and acts of redemption, thereby 'manifesting His
phenomenological effectiveness in Israel's history'. 181
According to Van der Toorn,182 the construct yhwh has been established as the primitive form.
Abbreviated – hypocoristic – forms, such as Yah, Yahû, Yô and Yĕhô are secondary regional
predilections. Yw is found predominantly in a Northern Israelite context, while Yh is mainly
Judean. Yhw was probably originally Judean, but at the same time not unknown among
Northern Israelites.183 The transcription "Yahweh" 'is a scholarly convention',184 based on
some Greek transcriptions. Thierry185 indicates that a word Yahô was at some time in exist-
ence but was not considered the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, which always had
its own vocalisation. To establish the origin of the pronunciation of YHWH, Thierry186 exam-
ined some patristic writings. Jerome 187 – one of the Church Fathers – made this remark, 'The
name of the Lord in Hebrew language contains four letters, Yod He Waw He; it is the proper
name of God and can be pronounced as Yahô.'188 Thierry189 maintains that evasive answers
are often given in biblical narratives, especially in theophanies. Exodus 3:14 focuses all the
attention on the concept "I am", and with the continuation of the same answer a firm parallel-
ism is formed between "I am" – hyha – and "Yahweh" – hwhy. The author of Exodus 3:14
most likely knew the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and explained it the way he com-
prehended it. From Moses’ time the Israelites probably pronounced the divine Name Yahweh.
178
Gianotti 1985:45.
179
Genesis 2:4-25.
180
Gianotti 1985:46.
181
Gianotti 1985:48.
182
Van der Toorn 1999e:910.
183
Compare the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud; see § 4.3.9 for a discussion of these inscriptions.
184
185
Thierry 1948:30-31.
186
Thierry 1948:32-34.
187
Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) (ca 347-419/20) was a scripture scholar, translator, polemicist and ascetic.
He was especially known for his translations and revisions of the biblical books (McHugh 1990:484-485).
188
Thierry 1948:34.
189
Thierry 1948:37-39, 42.
243
Hayward190 attempts to provide a solution to the question whether 'Memra191 forms part or the
whole of the background to the Johannine Logos'.192 Evidence from the Neofiti I193 and other
Targums194 indicates that Memra is an exegetical term for the Name revealed to Moses by
God, and consequently our understanding of Memra is that it directly represents this Name.
Memra probably originated in pre-Christian times and therefore it cannot be ruled out that the
evangelist John made use of it. However, the question remains whether he knew of the Mem-
ra, in the light of the problem whether the Fourth Gospel is Hellenistic or Jewish. Neverthe-
less, John probably knew of the Memra – which stood for God's presence in past and future
creation, representing his mercy, redemption and covenant – but fashioned it by his own ide-
as. Even though it may have been used in John's Prologue, Memra, thus, 'does not, by itself,
account for the whole of the Logos-doctrine'. 195
Coetzee196 regards the well-known "I am" or "Ego eimi" pronouncements of Jesus in the Gos-
pel of St John, as 'one of the most intriguing and theologically controversial issues in the Jo-
hannine debate'. In his discussion to ascertain the relationship between the Ego eimi sayings
in John 8-9 and Exodus 3:13-17, Coetzee197 comes to the conclusion that the "Ego eimi" in
John 8 'is definitely a technical expression in the mouth of Jesus whereby He explicitly claims
… his identification with the messianic Servant of the Lord', 198 as well as his unity with Yah-
weh.199 Segal200 discusses a striking similarity between Jesus' "I am" pronouncements 201 and
claims of magicians in the magical papyri. 202 He indicates that the Gospel writers were
190
Hayward 1979:17, 21, 25, 31-32.
191
Memra means "utterance", "word", 'God's creative intelligence and power' (Deist 1990:154).
192
The Greek word "logos" is described by Deist (1990:147) as 'word, intelligence, intellect, God's reflections
within himself before and during creation, and hence Christ as the mediator of creation.'
193
Neofiti I: a complete text of the Palestinian Targum is contained in the Codex Neofiti I, which is housed in
the Vatican Library. This codex is important for its marginal and interlinear glosses (Hayward 1979:16).
194
Targum, meaning "interpretation", is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible, dating from late pre-
Christian to early Christian times (Deist 1990:253).
195
Hayward 1979:31-32.
196
Coetzee 1986:171-176.
197
Coetzee 1986:174-176.
198
Coetzee 1986:174. Coetzee (1986:171-176) draws a comparison between John 8-9 and Isaiah 42-43.
199
Jesus' essential unity with Yahweh, the Covenant God of the Hebrew Bible, is recognised both in terms of
Exodus 3:13-17 and Isaiah 42-43 (Coetzee 1986:176).
200
Segal 1981:349, 351, 356, 367, 369, 372.
201
Segal's argument is based on declarations by Jesus Himself, or by any of the crowd, that He is the Son of
God, and on acts of healing by Jesus that were regarded by Scribes, Pharisees and the common people to be per-
formances of magic – thereby placing Him in the same category as the Hellenistic magicians. See for example,
Matthew 8:28-29; 9:6, 32-34; 13:41; Mark 2:10, 28; 3:11; 5:7-8; Luke 8:28.
202
Scholars named a body of papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt The Greek magical papyri. It consists of various
magical spells and formulae, rituals and hymns. These texts date mainly from the second century BC to the fifth
century AD. The texts represent only a small number of all the magical spells that once existed. Literary
sources refer to a large number of magical books in antiquity, wherein these spells were collected. Unfortunately
244
sensitive to any charges of magic brought against Jesus. 203 Such charges are a clever example
of social manipulation. There is no indication that Jesus wished to claim the title of magician.
To maintain the purity of religion, religious leaders often point out firm distinctions between
magic and religion. In the magical papyri the terms "magic" and "magical" are used and the
practitioners call themselves ma,goi, 204 "magicians". 'As in the magical papyri, the mix of
overtly magical claims with clearly religious desire of individual divinization makes it im-
practical to distinguish between magic and religion.'205
Regarding the Tetragrammaton as perceived by Jewish mysticism and explained in the Zo-
har,206 Sperling and Simon207 mention that 'it is a postulate of the Zohar that the Biblical name
YHWH – the so-called tetragrammaton – has an intimate, if unspecified, connection with the
primordial208 Thought. It is the chosen instrument for rendering the Thought intelligible or
realisable to the human mind.' According to the Zohar, the development of the grades 209 cor-
responds with both the development of the created universe and the emergence of a certain
name – the Tetragrammaton – which is the unifying element.210
On the basis of the "Great Tautology", hyha rXa hyha,211 Moses Maimonides212 'presents
an account of God in terms of a distinctive application of the categories of agent and act' in
his Guide of the Perplexed.213 In the application of his particular categories he encountered
the concept of "divine existence" and had to respond appropriately. God created our world by
most of these books have disappeared. An example is the episode of the burning of the magical books in Ephe-
sus (Acts 19:19). The extant Greek magical papyri are original documents and primary sources (Betz 1986:xli-
xlii).
203
Examples of Jesus’ healings and the negative response of the crowds are in Matthew 9:1-8; 32-34; Luke 8:26-
39; 11:14-23; John 7:10-21; 8:48-59; 10:19-21. See also Matthew 12:22-30; Mark 3:20-30; Luke 11:14-23. The
exorcism stories have been edited so that the question of Jesus’ power could be discussed. 'The scribes are rep-
resented as believing that Jesus' power is not from God but from Beelzebul' (Segal 1981:367).
204
The magoi were people from the Hellenistic world who had no real connection with Persia, although it were
the members of the Persian priestly clan who called themselves Magi. Although "magic" in Roman laws was
always mentioned in a negative context, theurgy (see footnote in § 4.1) represented 'the force that transformed
"magical" acts into acceptable religion in the Roman Empire' (Segal 1981:356, 364).
205
Segal 1981:372.
206
See relevant footnote on the Zohar and Kabbalah in § 4.1.
207
Sperling & Simon 1931:383.
208
209
The grades of the Zohar constitute a hierarchy, each being superior to the one that follows. The grade that
follows is conditioned by the grade above it. The Zoharic language refers to "upper" and "lower" grades. In the
scheme of the Zohar the Tetragrammaton has a special connection with the grade of Tifereth – meaning the
proper name. The grade Tifereth was the originator of the Neshamah – the moral consciousness, the highest of
the three grades of the soul. By inspiration Moses was 'able to grasp the connection between the grade and the
Name fully and clearly' (Sperling & Simon 1932:402-406, glossary).
210
211
Exodus 3:14.
212
See footnote on Maimonides in § 4.1.
213
Broadie 1994:473.
245
an act of will, and is therefore also capable of creating a world totally different from ours.
This knowledge 'sets a limit to what we can learn about God by a consideration of the natural
order'.214 Maimonides wished to attain knowledge about God by investigating a world in
which God had put an insignificant part of himself. According to Maimonides, we therefore
'would be seeking insight into the divine nature on the hopelessly inadequate basis of just one
manifestation of God's agency'. 215 He vigorously defends the doctrine of divine incorporeali-
ty. As expressed in Exodus 33:23 216 the true reality of God's existence cannot be grasped.
Nevertheless, 'we can acquire a knowledge of God which is sufficient to enable us to embark
on a proof of his existence'. 217 Maimonides indicates that all attributes ascribed to God, are
attributes of his actions and not of his essence. Similarly, all the names of God are derived
from actions, with the exception of one name, Yahweh. Yet, 'the Tetragrammaton does signi-
fy God in respect of a divine act, though, unlike the acts from which the other names of God
derive, the Tetragrammaton does not signify an act of a kind of which any human being is ca-
pable'. 218 Maimonides furthermore indicates that – although not clear how it should be trans-
lated – the "Great Tautology", hyha rXa hyha, refers to divine existence. hyha in the im-
perfectum signifies an ongoing action. He interprets the Tetragrammaton as the Name
through which the Israelites were to 'acquire a true notion of the existence of God'. 219 The
Name implies that God's existence is identical with his essence. Linking God's existence and
his essence is based on the concept of the absolute oneness of God. The "Great Tautology"
provided Maimonides' philosophy with a framework wherein a fuller notion of God devel-
oped. This theory of Maimonides – as developed in the Guide of the Perplexed – cannot,
however, be claimed to be the Jewish concept of the God of Israel. 220
In his discussion of the dialogue between two great intellectuals, the Jewish Martin Buber and
the Christian Paul Tillich, 221 Novak222 suggests 'that Jewish-Christian dialogue is most intel-
lectually fruitful when engaging in philosophical exegesis of the Bible'. Novak 223 argues that
the respective philosophical exegeses and interpretations of Exodus 3:14 224 by Buber and
214
Broadie 1994:474.
215
Broadie 1994:474.
216
Exodus 33:23, ' … but my face shall not be seen'.
217
Broadie 1994:476.
218
Broadie 1994:477.
219
Broadie 1994:481.
220
Broadie 1994:473-488.
221
Martin Buber and Paul Tillich knew each other for over forty years, starting in Germany during the turbulent
period after World War I. Both died in 1965. Buber – eight years Tillich's senior – seemed to have been the
teacher and Tillich the student (Novak 1992:159).
222
Novak 1992:159.
223
Novak 1992:159.
224
hyha rXa hyha.
246
Tillich enrich and expand each other. This text 'is the basis for a tradition of theological in-
terpretation that is the historical context for both Buber's and Tillich's philosophical exege-
sis'.225 According to the classic rabbinic interpretation of this text, God states that God's be-
ing-there is God's being-with God's people, while the classic Hellenistic interpretation in the
Septuagint226 is incomplete therein that it does not indicate the relationship between Israel and
the Absolute Being: "I am he who is" or "I am Being". Despite Buber's existentialist 227 clas-
sic, I am Thou,228 'that expresses the radical antimetaphysical primacy of temporal relationali-
ty',229 his interpretation of Exodus 3:14 shows remarkable similarity to the Hellenistic inter-
pretation. Buber refers to the eternal revelation of God which is present in the "here and
now". A relationship with the self-revealing and self-concealing God had to be conducted,
however, regarding the latter, Buber, somehow, could not indicate how this relationship was
to be constituted, and therefore 'could not in truth constitute divine transcendence'. 230 In his
Theology of Culture,231 Tillich rejects the logic of either the cosmological or the ontological 232
proof of the existence of God. He argues 'for God to be present as God, God must be experi-
enced in God's self-concealed absence as well. Without that, God's transcendence gets lost in
the intimacy experienced in God's self-revelation as mitsein (being-with) in the I-thou rela-
tionship'. 233 For Tillich, the relation 'had to have the precondition of our experienced need to
affirm the unconditional, even when we cannot apprehend it', 234 while for Buber, revelation
need have no real preconditions.235 The clearest focus of Jewish-Christian dialogue – as
achieved by Buber and Tillich – may be found in their respective interpretations of Exodus
3:14. Characteristic of their dialogue, not one side was convinced that it had the truth. They
were interested in teaching, as well as learning. They were both open to the possibility that
the Hebrew Bible still speaks the truth. Their involvement in philosophy – although its influ-
ence is more apparent in Tillich than in Buber – enabled this dialogue. Without philosophy –
and fundamentally ontology – neither could have read the Hebrew Bible the way they did.
'Accordingly, they vividly demonstrated that the most intellectually enriching
225
Novak 1992:161.
226
227
Existential or existentialist 'refers to constant confrontation with choices' – existentials – as a general attribute
of human existence (Deist 1990:90).
228
Contrary to the assumption that everything Buber wrote after 1923 was to be regarded as a footnote to I am
Thou, his interpretation of Exodus 3:14 did change, being a major shift away from his Platonic-like approach. A
next edition was published in 1957 (Novak 1992:164).
229
Novak 1992:163.
230
Novak 1992:166.
231
Published in 1959.
232
See footnote earlier in this paragraph.
233
Novak 1992:168.
234
Novak 1992:168.
235
Novak 1992:159-173.
247
Jewish-Christian dialogue may well be the open philosophical exegesis of scripture, in which
both Jews and Christians have – in one way or another – heard God's word.'236
Adam received power to name the created animals in the garden, and later he also named his
companion. Throughout Genesis naming, or the changing of the names of certain people,
played an important role.237 The significance of a name within the Israelite society and cul-
ture in general, should be distinguished from the significance of a name utilised for a particu-
lar purpose in a specific biblical narrative context.238 Therefore, the interpretation of the
names of God [Yahweh] and the significance thereof should be approached in the same way
as the interpretation of the names of biblical characters – particularly when different names
are applied in the same context. In a dialogue between Yahweh and Moses a list of divine at-
tributes of Yahweh are given,239 repeated and amended in other biblical texts 240 to serve vari-
ous purposes. In certain narratives specific alternative names of God appear. 241 Different
designations of God thus vary – depending on the context – and thereby imply a particular
characteristic of God. Literary conventions of biblical authors and editors may also – to a cer-
tain extent – have played a part in the application of a specific name. 242 Rabbinic comment –
which attempted to read something into the texts before them – on Exodus 34:6 and Exodus
3:14,243 is a reminder 'of how far biblical names conceal as much as they reveal'. 244
The phrase in Exodus 3:14 – hyha rXa hyha – has intrigued scholars for many decades. At
the same time, they endeavour to analyse the Tetragrammaton – hwhy – and submit a plausible
236
Novak 1992:174.
237
For example: Abram changes to Abraham (Gn 17:5); Sarai to Sarah (Gn 17:15); Jacob to Israel (Gn 32:28);
Benoni to Benjamin (Gn 35:18); Joseph to Zaphenath-paneah (Gn 41:45).
238
Exodus 1:8 refers to the "king of Egypt", while Exodus 1:11 mentions the "Pharaoh". This may simply be a
stylistic variant, or the narrator of the specific passage intended to convey a particular message (Magonet
1995:81).
239
Exodus 34:6-7,
' … the Lord [Yahweh], a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love
and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin , … .'
240
Biblical texts are, for example, Numbers 14:18; Psalms 86:5; 103:8-13; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3.
241
Examples are: in the dialogue between Abraham and Melchizedek (Gn 14:17-24) the names El Elyon [God
Most High] and Yahweh El Elyon are used; Naomi refers to Shadday [Almighty] (Ruth 1:20-21); Yahweh
Sebaoth [Lord of hosts] (Is 1:24).
242
Magonet 1995:80-82, 95-96.
243
Rabbinic interpretation of Exodus 34:6 reads: 'Said Rabbi Aba bar Memel: The Holy One, blessed be He, said
to Moses: You wish to know my name? I am named according to my actions. At different times I am called El
Shaddai, Tzevaot, Elohim, YHWH. When I judge the creation I am called Elohim; when I wage war against the
wicked I am called Tzevaot; when I suspend judgment for a person's sins I am called El Shaddai; and when I
show mercy to my world I am called YHWH – for the term YHWH refers only to the middat harahamim, the
attribute of mercy, as it says YHWH YHWH a God of mercy and compassion' and therefore, according to Exo-
dus R. 3.6 [see explanatory notes on the Talmud and Mishnah incorporated in footnotes in § 3.2.1 and § 3.2.2],
Exodus 3:14 declares: 'I am that I am – I am named according to My actions' (Magonet 1995:95-96).
244
Magonet 1995:95.
248
explanation for the word. Lately, the problem has been approached from a philological point
of view. A more objective and historical enquiry is being done. The following may be de-
duced from different arguments by scholars. One of their main concerns seems to be the par-
adox of the word hwhy being an imperfect finite verb – probably from the causative stem,
hif‛il – and therefore, of necessity, an imperfectum of the third person, 245 while the formula
hwhy yna – which appears frequently in the Masoretic Text – thus embodies a third person
imperfectum (hwhy) with a first person pronoun (yna) as subject – an unattainable construc-
tion. Scholars generally agree that the verbal form hyha rXa hyha (Ex 3:14) requires a
first person singular verb in the qal formation. The third person prefix in hwhy probably indi-
cates a hif‛il. No consensus has, however, been reached by scholars regarding the analysis of
the word hwhy. On the basis of many instances in Semitic antiquity where divine names de-
veloped from epithets, the word Yahweh could have been formed from the root hwy – to be, to
exist – possibly related to - , to live. He is the God who "is" – the active God – hāyā,
in the all-inclusive meaning of the word. In agreement with Gianotti's 246 opinion – regarding
the name hwhy in the second creation narrative – God's active involvement is indicated from
the beginning of history, thereby clarifying the significance of the imperfectum hyha. De-
spite innumerable attempts to explain the Name, it is evident 'that the root of the word cannot
be determined'.247 General consensus has, however, been reached that the word is pronounced
Yahweh.
The epiphany formula "I am …" was customary throughout the Ancient Near East. However,
instead of declaring to Moses "I am Yahweh", an explanation of the Name is given, thereby
revealing the deeper meaning thereof. The name Yahweh was probably an ancient epithet of
the God of Israel, capable of conveying a warning, threat or promise. The added interpreta-
tion of the Name suggested Yahweh's superiority over all other gods. The verb hwhy could be
either present or future tense, and therefore 'contains a strong overtone of future action.' 248 As
MacLaurin249 indicates, Yahweh is a sacred name given to the people in historic times – not
some prehistoric term of which the meaning became lost. Being extremely ancient, the name
Yahweh acquired new significance during the exodus. The archaic form hwh was modified to
hyh before the time of Moses. The revelation given to Moses was therefore of a name long
known. In Exodus 3 the verb hwh is explicitly connected with hwhy. However, due to a
245
Scholars generally agree that the word hwhy is an imperfectum third person masculine singular of the verb,
translated as "he causes to be", "he brings into existence", he brings to pass", "he creates".
246
Gianotti 1985:46.
247
MacLaurin 1962:441.
248
Clements 1972:23.
249
MacLaurin 1962:441-442.
249
succession of redactional adaptions, information in the Masoretic Text – probably altered to
suit the view of the editors – is of little value.
Scholars disagree whether the original form of the Name is an abbreviation of a longer con-
struct, or whether hwhy is the extension of shorter forms. According to Van der Toorn, 250
hwhy [Yahweh] was the established primitive form, while abbreviations, such as Yah, Yahû,
Yô and Yĕhô are secondary regional preferences. Nonetheless, Yahweh – interpreted as yah-
wā, the imperfectum of hwy – could have developed from the duplication of the primordial
word Yāh. However, according to Mowinckel, 251 a name containing a verbal construct – in
the ancient Semitic nomenclature – would always be in the abbreviated form. He therefore
finds it improbable that Yāh was the original form of the name Yahweh. At the same time he
suggests that the original meaning of the name Yahu – as an explanation of the name Ya-huwa
– should be explored. Ya was a well-known Arabic interjection, and huwa the third person
masculine personal pronoun, "he". Ancient North Sinaitic tribes could have worshipped their
god with the cultic exclamation yá-huwa – Oh, He. The abbreviated yahwa could thus be ex-
plained from the accentuation of yáhuwa. It is, however, unimaginable that a name as sacred
as Yahweh would be abbreviated in forms, such as Yā(w) or Yā(h). The shorter words were
probably ejaculatory in origin and could easily have been prolonged. Therefore, the venera-
tion of a tribal god Ya – or Yā(w), Yā(h) – could have developed into Yahweh – ultimately
treated as a verbal construct – with the new idea worshipping one national God. According to
an established custom in Egypt, the epithet "One" – Egyptian "W-" – was bestowed upon a
supreme deity. Contact existed between the Egyptians and Sinaitic tribes, such as the
Kenites. The Egyptian "I-W-I", "I am" – vocalised as "IaWeI ", "Yawey" – possibly influ-
enced the Kenite god Yāh to become Yah-weh, "Yah-One", with monotheistic implications.
During his sojourn with the Kenites, Moses doubtlessly became aware of the similar sounding
Yahweh, and Egyptian "I-W-I", "I am", which he translated into "Hebrew" 252 hyha, "I AM".
In the light of extra-biblical references to older Ya-related names, which have been discovered
over a wide region of the Ancient Near East, it seems likely that a longer Name Yahweh de-
veloped from such abbreviated forms/or form – probably from a Kenite god Yāh. A number
250
251
Mowinckel 1961:129-132.
252
I am aware of the fact that it is an anomaly to refer to "Hebrew" wherein Moses translated the Egyptian
"I-W-I", as Moses probably did not speak a Hebrew such as that is known from the Masoretic Text, although he
obviously spoke a similar Semitic dialect.
250
of extra-biblical references to the Name Yahweh and Ya-related names are discussed in the
next paragraph, 4.3.
It seems to me that Maimonides in his reasoning – centuries before the present scholarly de-
bates – has a credible elucidation of the elusive hyha rXa hyha, namely that the true reality
of God's existence cannot be grasped. The Tetragrammaton implies that God's existence is
identical with his essence, which is based on the concept of the absolute oneness of God.
Maimonides furthermore indicates that, to attain knowledge about God, we 'would be seeking
insight into the divine nature on the hopelessly inadequate basis of just one manifestation of
God's agency'. 253
4.3 Extra-biblical sources concerning the name YHWH or related forms

4.3.1 Introduction
Research on the appearance of analogous Ancient Near Eastern deities – particularly with ref-
erence to Athirat/Asherah – indicates that these deities were active in widely spread panthe-
ons,254 suggesting the acceptance in these pantheons of foreign deities and rituals. This phe-
nomenon, as well as the interchanging of beliefs and traditions among the various nations,
signifies that these peoples migrated continuously and extensively from one place to another.
Epigraphic finds recovered over a large area of the Ancient Near East include references to a
number of Ya-related names. These names may be an indication of a type of Ya-religion prac-
tised by different groups in the pre-Israelite period. According to the Kenite hypothesis, 255
Moses was introduced to Yahweh-worship by the Kenites/Midianites who, in all likelihood,
venerated Yahweh long before the Israelites did. Therefore it cannot be excluded that a god,
comparable to the Kenite god Yahweh, was worshipped elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.
The Kenites – who were nomadic peoples – may have spread their religious belief, or analo-
gous deities, such as Ya, may have had a common origin in some distant past.
Binger, 256 however, indicates that 'extra-biblical material has a number of common potential
errors and problems'. As generally accepted by scholars, biblical material has undergone
various redactions. On the other hand, this tendency would not be expected in the case of
extra-biblical material. An individual scribe presumably used a standard orthography257
253
Broadie 1994:474.
254
255
256
Binger 1997:26.
257
Orthography: a system of writing and (correct) spelling (Deist 1990:181).
251
throughout, being consistent in his spelling of individual words. However, it cannot be as-
sumed that all scribes spelled words the same way. A scribe may have been dyslexic, sloppy
or perfect or even writing his own language or dialect. Since the interpretation of a text often
depends on the reading of one letter or word, scribal errors could lead to misinterpretation or
the incorrect reading of a word or text. Akkadian – as the lingua franca of the Ancient Near
East during the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age – particularly seems to have been
subject to large orthographical discrepancies. The language was written in syllabic cunei-
form. 258 Words could be written in a number of different ways, probably depending on the
size of the tablet and how learned the scribe wanted to appear. The accidental absence of a
single wedge could lead to an incorrect reading of a word by scholars. 259 At the same time 'it
is not unusual to encounter scholars whose arguments are based on what is hidden in a la-
cuna260 – and reconstructed by the scholar – or who build their arguments on elaborate emen-
dations, claiming misspellings and faulty grammar on the part of the ancient scribe'. 261 The
state of preservation of archaeological material could also lead to errors in the interpretation
of texts. Most tablets are fragmentary with corroded surfaces and damaged edges. Piecing
correct fragments together can keep scholars occupied for decades. 262
A number of finds pertaining to Ya-related names are discussed merely briefly in the follow-
ing paragraphs. Each one of these finds requires specialised research which cannot be ad-
dressed as such in this thesis. The reader should keep this in mind when evaluating the fol-
lowing reviews.
4.3.2 Ebla
The remarkable discovery of approximately eighteen thousand texts from the royal archives
of the third millennium BC Tell Mardikh-Ebla263 has significant advantages for both Ancient
Near Eastern and biblical studies. Data supplied by these texts indicate a syncretism between
Sumerian-Akkadian deities and gods of Ebla. Pettinato264 points out references in the texts to,
inter alia, Il and Ya. Il, applied as a generic term for "god", also denotes a specific divinity
258
Syllabic cuneiform consists of a separate sign for each syllable of a word. Wedge-shaped symbols were used
for cuneiform script on stone and clay (Deist 1990:63, 249).
259
Binger 1997:26-27.
260
Lacuna/gap: a place where something is missing in a piece of writing, in a theory, an idea (Wehmeier
2005:825).
261
Binger 1997:27.
262
Binger 1997:26-28.
263
See § 2.3 for information on Tell Mardikh-Ebla.
264
Pettinato 1976:48.
252
Il/El known from Ugaritic texts. Ya could be understood as a hypocoristicon.265 He further-
more indicates that 'the alternation of personal names such as Mi-kà-Il/Mi-kà-Yà, En-na-Il/En-
na-Yà, Iš-ra-Il/ Iš-ra-Yà amply demonstrates that at Ebla at least Ya had the same value as Il
and points to a specific divinity'. 266 Before the reign of Ebrum, 267 personal names incorpo-
rated the theophoric268 element -Il while, from the time of Ebrum onwards, -Il was replaced
by -Ya. New developments in West Semitic religious notions made provision for the upsurge
of Ya, which could also be deliberated as a shortened form of Yaw. 269
Archi270 dismisses Pettinato's claim271 that the alternation of -IL and -Ya in personal names
indicates that Ya had the same value as Il as a deity at Ebla, as well as being a shortened form
of Yaw. Archi272 indicates that 'ya is a very common hypocoristic ending … used with Semit-
ic and non-Semitic names'. Hypocoristic names are usually forms of endearment that later
became common usage, and 'have nothing to do with Yahwism'. 273 Thus, the alternating of Il
with Ya as it appears in the names of one or more persons does not indicate the exchange of
one divine element for another. El was a "live deity" in Ebla and if -ya was also a divine ele-
ment in a name it would imply two names for a person, each petitioning a different deity. 274
Archi275 therefore concludes that -ya is simply a diminutive form not representing any "spe-
cific deity". Even during the so-called "religious revolution" in the time of Ibrium [Ebrum]
and his son, -ya never superseded -Il; numerous -ya names might be ascribed to scribal con-
vention. Theophoric -Il names are to be expected in Ugaritic and Amorite personal names. If
there were an Amorite or West Semitic god Yahweh, 'he did not correspond to what Yahweh
265
See footnote on hypocoristicon in § 2.3.
266
Pettinato 1976:48.
267
The names of five kings appear in the Eblaite texts. These are subdivided into two groups. In the second
group are two kings, Ibrium [Ebrum] and Ibbi-Sipish – the latter being the son of Ibrium. Both probably had
long reigns. According to information on some of the tablets – although not easy to evaluate – it seems that Ibri-
um of Ebla and Sargon of Akkad are mentioned in the same commercial text (Matthiae 1980:165-167). Sargon
of Akkad is dated 2334-2279 BC (Bodine 1994:33). This date is significant regarding the increase in the appli-
cation of the theophoric element –Ya in personal names. See also footnote in § 2.3 regarding Eberum.
268
See description of a theophoric name, incorporated in a footnote on "hypocoristicon" in § 2.3.
269
Pettinato 1976:48.
270
Archi 1979:556-566.
271
Pettinato 1976:48.
272
Archi 1979:556.
273
Archi 1979:557.
274
Archi 1979:558. According to Pettinato (1976:48) the theophoric element -Il was incorporated in personal
names before the reign of king Ebrum while, from the time of Ebrum onwards, this practice was replaced by
incorporating -Ya in personal names. Therefore, Archi's argument – that the exchange of one divine element for
another implies two names for a person, each petitioning a different deity – is not tenable. In agreement with
Pettinato's reasoning – wherein he refers to different periods of time regarding the incorporation of the two "the-
ophoric" elements – it is hardly likely that the same person(s) could be involved.
275
Archi 1979:559.
253
meant for Israel'. 276 Archi, 277 furthermore, indicates that the interchange between the names
El and Yahweh was not uncommon among the Hebrews. After a comparison between, inter
alia, institutions, literary works and place names of Ebla and ancient Israel, Archi 278 finally
concludes that the tradition of the patriarchs 'is not the tradition of the Eblaite state'. Freed-
man279 is of the opinion that the Ebla tablets do not hold the origins of Israel.
In his reaction to Archi's article, 280 Pettinato281 repudiates Archi's arguments, indicating that
he eagerly expected a "new structure", but 'all these expectations will be dashed if there is no
guarantee of the competence and professional qualification of the one tackling such a many-
sided argument'. He furthermore mentions that Archi 'is not an assyriologist, nor a sumerolo-
gist, nor a semitist, nor a biblicist, nor a historian of religion'. 282 Pettinato283 denies that he
identified the Eblaite Ya or Yaw with the biblical Yahweh. The supposition that the inter-
changing of the elements -il and -ya in personal names allude to the same persons, is hardly
sufficient evidence to come to such a conclusion. Pettinato 284 indicates that his statement that
the -ya-element supplanted -Il during the reign of Ebrum is statistically justifiable. He con-
cludes that 'one cannot overlook the tendency permeating the whole article 285 to cancel even
the remote relationship between Ebla and the Bible'. 286
Sperling287 agrees that similarities in the cultures and languages of third-millennium BC Ebla,
second-millennium BC Mari and first-millennium BC Israel appear, but indicates that the in-
terpretation of elements in personal names in texts from Ebla as reference to Yahweh have not
won general acceptance amongst scholars. Arguments in favour of possible extra-biblical al-
lusions to a god analogous to Yahweh, however, do not resolve the question of the origin of
Yahweh-worship. Van der Toorn288 denotes that the name Yahweh has not been discovered in
any Semitic text older than 1200 BC and that Yahweh was not worshipped outside Israel.
276
Archi 1979:560.
277
Archi 1979:559-560.
278
Archi 1979:566.
279
Freedman 1980:202.
280
Archi 1979:556-566.
281
Pettinato 1980:203.
282
Pettinato 1980:203.
283
Pettinato 1980:204. In reaction to Pettinato's article (Pettinato 1976:44-52), Archi (1979:559-560) deduces
that 'the presence of a form of Yahweh in Amorite personal names at all is, in fact, a problem. … if there were
an Amorite or more generally a West Semitic god named Yahweh, he did not correspond to what Yahweh meant
for Israel'.
284
Pettinato 1980:204.
285
Article of Archi (1979:556-566).
286
Pettinato 1980:215.
287
Sperling 1987:2-3.
288
Van der Toorn 1999e:910-911.
254
Van der Toorn289 is furthermore of the opinion that Pettinato's claim of the shortened form Ya
for Yahweh in the Ebla texts is unsubstantiated.290 The "mysterious god" Ya is not mentioned
in any list of gods or offerings. 'His cult at Ebla is a chimera'. 291 Wiseman292 agrees that
there is no evidence that names with a hypocoristic ending -ya refer to a divine name
Yah(weh). Dahood293 mentions that five people in the Hebrew Bible carry the name yôbāb294
– probably interpreted as "Yo is the door". He argues that in all likelihood a god Yo was wor-
shipped by the early Arabs, Edomites and Canaanites. Therefore it is not improbable that a
god Ya was venerated by the Eblaites, 'since the long a in Eblaite becomes long o in southern
dialects, the equation yā equals yō can readily be granted'.295 This does not, however, sanc-
tion the equalising of Eblaite Ya with biblical Yahweh.
Scholars generally disagree with Pettinato's claim that the hypocoristic -ya in some Eblaite
texts indicates a deity at Ebla, equivalent to the god Il. This is a debatable question. Alt-
hough there is not sufficient evidence to support the allegation of a god Ya in the Eblaite pan-
theon, such a suggestion should not be rejected out of hand.
4.3.3 Mari
Excavations at Tell Hariri – the ancient Syrian city Mari296 – yielded approximately twenty-
five thousand cuneiform tablets from the archives of the palace of king Zimri-Lim. 297 Texts
mention, inter alia, the habiru298 and the tribe of the Benjaminites. Scholars link both groups
to the Hebrews. Descriptions in these texts of movements of nomadic peoples in the vicinity
of Mari are important for the understanding of the Patriarchal Period. Sasson 299 indicates that
some Mari institutions have successfully compared with those found in the Hebrew Bible, yet,
'attempts to use Mari documentation to confer historicity on the patriarchal narrative have
289
290
Pettinato (1980:204), however, denies that he equated Ya with Yahweh. With regard to Archi's reaction
(1979:559-560) on his article (Pettinato 1976:44-52), Pettinato mentions that 'Archi apparently let himself be
carried away by enthusiasm and ascribed to me the identification of Eblaite Ya or Yaw with biblical Yahweh'.
291
292
Wiseman 1982a:295.
293
Dahood 1981:607-608.
294
Jobab, the youngest son of Joktan, and hence the name of an Arabian group (Gn 10:29); Jobab, the second
king of Edom, from the northern capital Bozrah (Gn 36:33); Jobab, king of the Canaanite city Madon in northern
Palestine, was defeated by Joshua (Jos 11:1; 12:19); two Benjaminites were named Jobab (1 Chr 8:9, 18) (Da-
hood 1981:607).
295
Dahood 1981:607.
296
See a discussion of Mari in § 2.4.
297
See footnote in § 2.4 on Zimri-Lim.
298
See § 2.4 and § 2.5 for a discussion of the habiru.
299
Sasson 1962:570-571.
255
largely failed'. However, Mari's onomastics contribute to arguments in favour of dating the
patriarchs in the second millennium BC. 300
As indicated in paragraph 4.3.2, the term or name El/Il was well known in the West Semitic
world, either as a designation for a "god", or as head of the Ugaritic pantheon. It should thus
be expected to be an element in numerous divine names during the second millennium BC.
One of these divine names is El Shadday,301 God Almighty. According to Genesis 12:1, the
patriarch Abram was confronted by Yahweh who promised him land and a nation. At a later
stage El Shadday made a covenant with him in this regard302 which was subsequently repeat-
ed to Jacob.303 The name Shadday may be found amongst proper names at Mari, such as Ša-
du-um-la-bi, Ša-du-la-ba, Ša-du-um-la-ba. It is therefore possible that Abram, en route from
Haran to Canaan, passed Mari and that El Shadday was revealed to him. Although Genesis
12:1 refers to Yahweh, there is no real evidence that Abram encountered Yahweh at that stage.
The Tetragrammaton was probably unknown at Mari, unless it could be identified with a
name such as Ia-wi-el. In addition hereto, Mari names that have been found are such as Ya-
hwu-malik which seems to mean "Malik lives", or Ya-hw/u-dagan interpreted as "Dagan
lives". 304 MacLaurin305 is of the opinion that a name Yau was known at Mari. Some names
incorporating the element -ya have been identified as those of rulers or officials at Mari. The-
se names include Haya-Abum, 306 Yaphur-Lim307 and Yarim-Addu. 308
Although a name such as Ia-wi-el may be identified as being related to Yahweh, there is no
such direct indication. The Benjaminites, who apparently played a major role at Mari 309 and
have been linked to the Hebrews, could have been responsible for a connection between this
Ia-wi-el and the Israelite Yahweh, although this does not seem likely. According to the Kenite
300
Sasson 1962:571. See footnote in § 3.5 on onomasticon.
301
ydX la
302
Genesis 17:1.
303
Genesis 35:11. See also Genesis 48:3.
304
MacLaurin 1962:440, 443-444.
305
MacLaurin 1962:444.
306
Haya-Abum was probably a governor of a province of Mari. Royal letters 151 and 152 must have been writ-
ten by him (Heimpel 2000:90). The archives of the palace of Zimri-Lim include diplomatic letters sent to the
Mari court by officials and are dated to the first quarter of the second millennium BC (Negev & Gibson
2001:317).
307
Yaphur-Lim wrote royal letter 118. He reported to king Zimri-Lim about taking Hana troops from one point
to another within the territory of Mari; he was probably an official of the king (Heimpel 2000:91).
308
Yarim-Addu is mentioned in royal letter 151. He provided grain for the troops under Haya-Abum's command
(Heimpel 2000:91).
309
Texts found at Mari refer to the Benjaminites – inter alia – in census texts, in literary texts referring to a Ben-
jaminite rebellion and in correspondence of the Benjaminite kings (Durand 1992:531-532, 534-535).
256
hypothesis,310 the Hebrews/Israelites became acquainted with Yahweh through the
Kenites/Midianites in the South. Despite the fact that the name Ia-wi-el incorporates two the-
ophoric elements, ya- and -el, Mari texts do not refer to a deity with a ya-related name.
4.3.4 Egyptian records

A thirteenth century BC Egyptian text,311 as well as Amenhotep III's fourteenth century BC
Topographical List,312 mention 'Yhw [Yahu] in the Land of the shasu, providing the earliest
evidence for the god Yahweh and linking him with these nomadic people', 313 namely the
Shasu/Shosu. In the earliest known reference to the land of Edom, 314 the inhabitants were
called the Shasu [or Shosu] tribes of Edom.315 As mentioned earlier in paragraph 2.6, addi-
tional Egyptian evidence from Ramesses II 316 and Ramesses III317 connects the "land of the
Shosu" and Seir. It is furthermore apparent from this evidence that both Edom and Seir were
peopled by the Shasu. A strong tradition in the Hebrew Bible likewise links Edom and
Seir.318 According to Egyptian sources, the Shasu appeared over a widespread area, but were
identified as coming forth from Edom in southern Transjordan. 319 The Shasu, as the habiru,
were unruly people disrupting the Canaanite regions and city-states.320 In time to come – dur-
ing the twelfth century BC – the Shasu fully integrated into the Canaanite culture. 321 The lat-
er Israelite community probably included groups such as the habiru and Shasu-Bedouins. It
thus seems that the origin of Yahweh worship should be searched for – as early as the end of
the fifteenth century BC [or beginning of the fourteenth century BC] – among the Shasu of
Edom and the regions of Mount Seir. 322 Hasel, 323 however, mentions that although
scholars cite a correlation between the Shasu and the name Yahweh – based on the Kenite
310
311
During the reign of Ramesses II (Van der Toorn 1999e:911); dated 1279-1212 BC (Clayton 1994:146).
312
The Topographical List from Soleb in Nubia (Nakai 2003:141), which is dated during the reign of Amenophis
III (Van der Toorn 1999e:911); Amenophis III is the same person as Amenhotep III (Aldred 1998:10), dated
1386-1349 BC (Clayton 1994:112).
313
Nakai 2003:141.
314
This reference is recorded in the Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi VI. See footnote in § 2.6 on this papyrus and the
relevant reference.
315
See § 2.6 for a discussion of the Shasu/Shosu tribes, their connection with Edom and Seir, and their possible
link with the habiru (see descriptions in § 2.4 and § 2.5).
316
During the thirteenth century BC pharaoh Ramesses II [1279-1212 BC] was described as 'a fierce raging lion,
who has laid waste to the land of the Shosu, who has plundered Mount Seir with his valiant arm' (Bartlett
1989:41-42). See footnote in § 2.6.
317
In the twelfth century BC Ramesses III [1182-1151 BC] boasts that 'I brought about the destruction of Seir
among the Shosu tribes. I laid waste their tents with their people, their belongings, and likewise their cattle
without number' (ANET3 262) (Bartlett 1989:42). See footnote in § 2.6.
318
Bartlett 1989:41-42, 178. Links in the Hebrew Bible are, for example, in Numbers 24:18; Judges 5:4.
319
Zevit 2001:118.
320
De Moor 1997:117, 123, 177.
321
Nakai 2003:140-141.
322
Nakai:2003:141.
323
Hasel 2003:28-29.
257
hypothesis,324 which is not conclusive – there is no certainty whether "Seir Yhw" refers to a
region, city or mountain. Despite the scepticism of scholars such as Hasel, it is significant
that early poetry in the Hebrew Bible links Yahweh with the South – Seir, Edom, Paran, Sinai
and Teman. 325
Although scholars generally agree that the literary sources from the time of Ramesses II and
Ramesses III refer to the Shasu and Seir in the same texts – implying that the Shasu were
from the region of Seir – some scholars disagree that this "Seir" refers to the territory in
Edom. Biblical Seir is indicated both east and west of Wadi Arabah, identified with Edom.
Egyptian sources do not indicate the location of Seir, but it does seem to be close to their ter-
ritory. 326 It should be kept in mind that the Egyptians were operative in various areas of the
Ancient Near East throughout their history. An indication that Seir is close to Egyptian terri-
tory, therefore, does not dismiss the possibility that this "Seir" refers to Seir in Edom. Mac-
Donald327 indicates that the Shasu represented a social class which was partially sedentary
and partially nomadic, regularly engaging in mercenary work or "free-booting". The raid on
Seir by Ramesses III could be linked to the Egyptian mining interests at Timnah. 328
Astour329 questions the validity of regarding the Seir in specific Egyptian texts 330 as being the
Seir in Edom. Seir in the relevant Egyptian texts was written with a duplicated -r, while it is
written with one -r in other Egyptian texts. Identifiable place names which appear with the
Seir in question331 all belong to central Syria. The name Yahwe/Yiha [Yahu] – which is in-
cluded in these lists – should thus be located in the same general region. Egyptian sources
describe these areas as "heavily infiltrated" by Shasu Bedouins. Therefore, according to
Astour,332 'whatever the connection between the place name and the divine name, the occur-
rence of the former in Egyptian records cannot be used as evidence for an early presence of
the latter in Edom'. Hess333 indicates that the spelling of the place name Yh(w) is close to the
Hebrew name y-h-w-h; a similarity in these names could thus be possible with 'the likelihood
324
325
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4-5; Psalm 68:7-8; Habakkuk 3:3.
326
MacDonald 1994:231. Literary sources from the time of Ramesses II (see earlier footnote in this paragraph)
refer to Mount Seir; the latter has been identified as a mountain on the borders of the territory of Judah, and Seir
as the region south-east of the Dead Sea – thus, the territory of the Edomites (Negev & Gibson 2001:454).
327
MacDonald 1994:231-232.
328
See § 2.14.1 and relevant footnote.
329
Astour 1962:971.
330
A list of Asiatic place names in Ramesses II's temple in Nubia, in Amenhotep III's Topographical List and in
Ramesses III's topographic catalogue (Astour 1962:971).
331
Seir written with the duplicated -r.
332
Astour 1962:971.
333
Hess 1991:181-182. The Egyptian consonants y and h probably correlate with the Hebrew yodh and he.
258
that this place name is the earliest extrabiblical attestation of the name Yahweh'. 334 Numerous
theophoric toponyms, known from Israelite tribal regions, are constructed with the name ’l.335
Throughout Israel's history, toponyms composed with yhwh are virtually unattested. This
probably reflects a reluctance to attach the name of Yahweh to one particular place. 336 De
Moor337 agrees with Astour that the Shosu-land s‛rr is incorrectly identified with biblical Seir,
as 'the Egyptian determinative 338 renders it impossible to conclude that this is the oldest attes-
tation of Yahweh as a deity or a mountain'.339 Egyptian interpreters could have been misled
by the expression ‛m yhwh, which could be understood either as "the people (named) Yah-
weh", or "the people of (the god) Yahweh ". It could thus be deduced – according to De
Moor340 – that the Egyptian inscriptions341 may refer to Yahweh [Yh(w)] as 'the name of an
aggressive semi-nomadic group bothering Egypt from the fourteenth century onwards', and
that they should be sought much further north than Edom.
In one of the Amarna Letters342 Abi-Milku, mayor of Tyre, is warned against the Ia-we by the
Egyptian king. The latter would hardly have been bothered to alert Abi-Milku against an un-
important individual. This Ia-we was thus either a generic name – like the Shosu-Yhw of the
Egyptian texts – or the leader of a group of formidable enemies. 343 As indicated earlier in this
paragraph, there seems to have been a connection between the Shasu and the habiru.344 As
the habiru were also employed as mercenaries 'it is therefore very tempting to connect this
"Iawe" with the warriors of YHWH'. 345
According to Van der Toorn,346 archaic poetic texts in the Hebrew Bible 347 'have preserved
the memory of a topographical link between Yahweh and the mountain area south of Edom.
In these theophany texts Yahweh is said to come from [inter alia] Seir. … The biblical
334
Hess 1991:182.
335
Toponyms with ’l [the divine name el] are, for example, Eltolad (Jos 15:30), Jezreel (Jos 15:56), Eltekon (Jos
15:59), allotted to the tribe of Judah; Eltekeh (Jos 19:44) allotted to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:40) (De Moor
1997:34-39).
336
De Moor 1997:38. The Egyptian "place name" Yh(w) is dated decades earlier than the allocation of Israelite
tribal places and the time of David; crossing of the Jordan ca 1240/1220 BC; David ca 1011/10-971/70 BC
(Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:195-196).
337
De Moor 1997:117, 124-126.
338
See footnote on "determinatives" in § 2.7.
339
De Moor 1997:124.
340
De Moor 1997:125.
341
See earlier footnotes in this paragraph.
342
See § 2.5.
343
De Moor 1997:125-126.
344
See also § 2.6.
345
De Moor 1997:126.
346
347
See relevant texts in an earlier footnote in this paragraph.
259
evidence on the topographical background of Yahweh is supported by the reference to the
land of the Shasu-beduins of Yahu'. Van der Toorn348 assumes that the Egyptian s‛rr can be
interpreted as s‛r. Therefore it may be "tentatively concluded" that these Shasu-Bedouins of
Yahu could be placed in the area of Edom and Midian. Dever 349 denotes that the Shasu –
known from Egyptian texts – were positioned in southern Transjordan and seemingly linked
to a Yahweh-cult there. Bartlett350 argues that the Shasu clearly could be located in Edom and
Seir, although they were not necessarily limited to those areas. Some scholars link the Ho-
rites with Seir. 351 Younker352 mentions that – according to Egyptian sources – the Shasu were
depicted as a social class rather than an ethnic group, which was divided into tribes, or clans,
and led by chieftains. Due to their ubiquitous appearance they were also found near Ammon,
as indicated in the Toponym List of Ramesses II.353
De Moor354 identifies a certain Beya as the "real ruler" of Egypt in the declining years of the
Nineteenth Dynasty.355 Beya was his Semitic name – possibly a Yahwistic name, while this
"ruler's" Egyptian name was R‛-mssw-h‛.m-ntrw. 356 De Moor357 proposes to identify Beya
with Moses. Hess, 358 however, indicates that, although the final syllable in the name seems to
be a hypocoristic ending -ya, 'no contemporary West Semitic texts have names with this suf-
fix interpreted as Yahweh.' Furthermore, a certain Peya appears in two letters359 found at
Amarna. 360 The name Peya – resembling Beya361 – is Egyptian; the hypocoristicon being
piyy. Therefore, Beya could be an Egyptian and not a West Semitic name with a common
hypocoristic ending. The antiquity of the form Ya(h) appears in many sources, for instance,
the Palestine list of Tuthmosis III 362 refers to Ba-ti-y-a, "the house of Ya".363 Bithiah
348
349
Dever 1997a:40.
350
Bartlett 1989:76, 78.
351
See Genesis 36:20-30. Lists of the clans of two generations link the Horites and Seir, and refer to, inter alia,
'the sons of Seir in the land of Edom' (Gn 36:20-21). The name "Horite" has been connected with the Hurrians, a
non-Semitic people from northern Mesopotamia (Barlett 1989:76).
352
Younker 2003:164-165.
353
This list was originally of a fifteenth century BC origin and includes a group of six names in "the land of the
Shosu", which clearly seems to be located in Edom, Moab and the northern Moabite plateau, which bordered
and, at times, included Ammon (Younker 2003:164-165).
354
De Moor 1997:214-227.
355
Nineteenth Dynasty: 1293-1185 BC (Clayton 1994:98).
356
The name means: Ramesses-is-the-manifestation-of-the-gods (De Moor 1997:215).
357
For a detailed discussion of De Moor's arguments, see De Moor (1997:214-227).
358
Hess 1991:182.
359
Two letters from Gezer, EA 292 and 294 (Hess 1991:182).
360
See § 2.5 on the Amarna Letters.
361
In two occurrences (lines 42 and 51 in letter EA 292) the name can be read as bé-e-ia (Hess 1991:182).
362
Tuthmosis III, dated 1504-1450 BC (Clayton 1994:104).
363
MacLaurin 1962:451.
260
– hytb – was the daughter of a pharaoh and the wife of Mered, descendant of Judah. 364 Ac-
cording to Dahlberg,365 her name is an indication that she was a worshipper of Yahu.
Archaeological surveys in Edom indicate thinly-spread agricultural settlements. No Iron I site

or Edomite town – even early Iron II – has yet been excavated. The first known Edomite set-
tlement was located on the Arabah road.366 'Recent historical and archaeological research in-
dicates an Edom that prospered as a national entity only in the latter part or the Iron age.' 367
4.3.5 YW: deity name from Ugarit

Remains of the ancient city Ugarit in northern Syria were identified at Ras Shamra. 368 A cu-
neiform alphabetical script, revealed on the excavated tablets,369 is of great significance for
the research on the development of the Canaanite script and literature, being close to biblical
Hebrew. 370 The majority of the texts are of mythological character, furnishing information on
the religion of Syria and Canaan in the first half of the second millennium BC. 371
The single occurrence of the name Yw – as yw’elt – appears in a damaged mythological text
from Ugarit, with a suggested reading " … the name of my son is yw’Elat [or Yw, the son of
’Elat, wife of Il]".372 The rest of the text refers to Ym (Yam),373 the deity of the sea. Scholars
suggest that yw could be a by-form of ym, or that it may be a shortened form of an imperfect
hwy verb.374 De Moor375 mentions that according to these mythological texts, Ilu, Yw/Yammu
and Ba‛lu were all involved in a struggle for control over the kingship of the pantheon. A
number of years ago, De Moor376 agreed with scholars that it was extremely unlikely that
there was a link between a Ugaritic god Yw and the Israelite God Yahweh. He has, however,
since then changed his conviction and indicates that 'little can be said against the identifica-
tion from a philological377 point of view'.378 He suggests that the word yw might represent
364
1 Chronicles 4:17.
365
Dahlberg 1962a:443.
366
Lapp 1994:217, 226.
367
Lapp 1994:219.
368
See § 2.8 for a discussion of Ugarit and the Ras Shamra tablets.
369
Kapelrud 1962c:728.
370
371
Kapelrud 1962c:725-726, 729.
372
KTU 1.1:IV.13 (Hess 1991:182).
373
For a description of the important Ugaritic Ba‛al myths – a cycle of three interrelated episodes – dealing, inter
alia, with Yam, see Willis (1993:65).
374
Hess 1991:182.
375
De Moor 1997:108.
376
De Moor 1997:165-166.
377
See footnote in § 4.2 on philology.
378
De Moor 1997:165.
261
yawê ≺ yahwê, a jussive379 of hwy. De Moor380 furthermore mentions that 'in very early epi-
graphical Hebrew personal names the name of YHWH is written as Yw. … [therefore] we
can no longer reject the possibility that the Ugaritic god Yw is identical to YHWH', with the
result that some peculiarities in the Ba‛al-myth appear in a new light. Abba 381 argues that
there is no evidence that the name Yw’elt – which occurs only once in the Ugaritic texts – re-
fers to the Israelite God. It appears that Yahweh was a name unique to Israel, and any identi-
fication to the contrary 'based upon a single reference is highly improbable'. 382 Hess, 383 like-
wise, indicates that the fragmentary nature of the Ugaritic text renders 'any certainty of ident i-
fication impossible' and, unless further evidence becomes available, Yw should be discounted
as a divine name. Van der Toorn384 agrees that the singular name Yw – with unknown vocali-
sation in a damaged text – 'cannot convincingly be interpreted as an abbreviation for Yahweh'.
According to MacLaurin, 385 Hebrew theophoric names seem to indicate that, in both Hebrew
and Ugaritic, YH/YW was an independent divine name. At an early stage Canaanite -aw be-
came -ô, with the result that the unaccented Yaw in Hebrew theophoric names became Yô – as
in Yo-hanan. However, in Ugaritic – for example – the accented independent name Yaw did
not undergo this change. Likewise, YHW – representing Ya(h)w – became Yahu or Yaho.
YHW is therefore an earlier form of the Tetragrammaton and not an abbreviation thereof, and
thus 'only another way of writing the earliest form YW'.386 Greek evidence supports the view
that the original form of the Tetragrammaton may have been Yau or Yah. Eusebius387 refers
to a god Yeuō which was worshipped at Gebal, 388 approximately 1000 BC, and Clement of
Alexandria389 quotes a form Yao.390 Scholars have suggested to identify Yw with the Phoeni-
cian deity ’Ienw referred to by Eusebius. 391
379
Jussive: a verb form expressing an order (Wehmeier 2005:806).
380
De Moor 1997:165-166.
381
Abba 1961:321.
382
Abba 1961:321.
383
Hess 1991:183, 188.
384
385
MacLaurin 1962:452. Examples are Jehu (YH is HW/YH is He), Elihu (El is HW/El is He), Adonijah (Adon
is YH), as well as Asherel (Asher is El), Daniel/Dan-el in Ugaritic (El/God is judge).
386
MacLaurin 1962:453. For a discussion of the changes that took place in these theophoric forms, see MacLau-
rin (1962:449-460).
387
See footnote on the name Melqart in § 3.5 for information on the history written by Eusebius.
388
Gebal was an ancient Phoenician coastal city, the centre of trade and shipbuilding. It exported various prod-
ucts. As one of the most ancient cities in the Ancient Near East, its history can be traced back to Neolithic times.
Rulers during the nineteenth to eighteenth centuries BC were Semites and probably Amorites (Kapelrud
1962a:359).
389
Clement of Alexandria (ca 160-215) was a Christian writer who sought connections between Christianity and
the Greek culture. It appears that he headed an independent school that presented Christianity as the true philos-
ophy (Wagner 1990:214).
390
MacLaurin 1962:459.
391
Hess 1991:182-183. See earlier footnote in this paragraph with reference to Melqart and Eusebius.
262
4.3.6 Akkadian text from Ugarit
Names found in the area of ancient Israel containing the divine element yw/yh/hw are normal-
ly automatically evaluated as being "Yahwist". The question arises whether names are Yah-
wist when derived from non-Israelite periods – such as the Bronze Age – and from cultural
contacts other than Israelite. 392
An Akkadian text 393 from Ugarit describes the manumission of a woman called eli-ia-wa.394
In an Israelite context the obvious translation would be "my god is Yahweh". As the name is
from a non-Israelite context it is unlikely that the theophoric element is derived from Yahweh,
but more likely from another god, such as Ugaritic Yaw.395 A similar example is found from a
Hittite name in a Hittite treaty. 396 Therefore, 'a divinity, bearing the name of Yahweh or Yaw
in the north of the Syrian-Palestinian area, in the Bronze Age' could equally be justified.397
However, if Yahweh is not an exclusive Israelite name it loses its significance as an indicator
to biblical monotheism pertaining to a Yahweh-cult, and 'Yahweh, in both the Bronze Age
and early Iron Age, becomes just another god of the Syrian-Palestinian area'.398
Spelling and other errors are a possibility in any given text. Scholars should not, however,
base their arguments on reconstructions, claiming "faulty grammar" on the part of the ancient
scribe. Texts – particularly those on clay tablets – are often found fragmentary, with corroded
surfaces and damaged edges. These factors can contribute to the possible misinterpretation of
texts.399 Pardee400 mentions that he has 'observed the absence of specific links' between Uga-
ritic and known Mesopotamian texts. Scholars often assume that versions of Ugaritic texts
are translations of unattested original Akkadian texts. He has, however, found very few Ak-
kadian loan words in the Ugaritic language and was impressed by the general purity of Uga-
ritic. He concludes that 'the Ugaritic texts we have reflect an old West Semitic tradition'. 401
392
Binger 1997:34.
393
RS 8.208. ANET:546 (Binger 1997:34).
394
The name may contain a double suffix yy, referring to an Egyptian deity ilyy (Binger 1997:34).
395
It is unlikely that a Ugaritic scribe would have written Yw instead of Ym by mistake (Binger 1997:34-35).
396
A treaty (PDK, text no 9.1.19-20) between Hattušilis III, king of Hatti and Bentišina, king of Amurru, reads:
f
ga-áš-šù-li-ja-ù-i-e – I have given the daughter of the king, Gašullijaue (Binger 1997:34).
397
Binger 1997:35.
398
Binger 1997:35.
399
Binger 1997:27-28.
400
Pardee 2001:233.
401
Pardee 2001:233.
263
4.3.7 Personal names from Alalakh and Amarna
Late Bronze Age cuneiform collections from Alalakh and Amarna include, inter alia, personal
names ia-we-e and ia-we, respectively. 402
The ancient site of Alalakh is identified with Tell Atchana in northern Syria. It lies on the fer-
tile Amuq plain, next to the Orontes river. Alalakh commanded the east-west and north-south
trade routes, providing an important contact with the eastern Mediterranean commercial
world. Seventeen levels – dating from 3100 BC to 1200 BC – were excavated at the site.
Levels VII and IV yielded hundreds of cuneiform texts. These texts facilitated the process of
reconstructing the society at Alalakh. Structures uncovered at Level VII were, inter alia, a
palace, a temple and a city gate. This period – dated the end of the eighteenth century BC –
covered the reigns of three kings. A cuneiform archive discovered in Level IV is dated one or
two centuries later. An inscription on a broken statue identifies Idrimi 403 and relates his life.
Analysis of texts from Alalakh contributes to the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. 404 Sever-
al parallels with passages in the Hebrew Bible have been found. 405 Texts furthermore refer to
the habiru.406 Hess407 is of the opinion that the term "habiru" in the Alalakh texts differs from
references to the "Hebrews" in the Hebrew Bible. He indicates 'that the comparative method
must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to generalize'. 408
A personal name ia-we-e, 'with a possible identity with Yahweh', 409 appears in one of the
many census lists among the Akkadian texts excavated from the Late Bronze stratum IV of
Alalakh. 410 These lists reveal individuals – as well as their corresponding functions – who
had 'an alignment in that society according to classes and sub-groups'. 411 The Late Bronze
402
Hess 1991:181.
403
The inscription relates the story about a prince (Idrimi) who flees his country when his father is murdered.
He returns after seven years to re-establish his rule. His building activities – which are recorded in the inscrip-
tion – include a palace; probably to be identified with a thirty-three room structure found on the site. His statue
was found in the latest level of Alalakh. The city was destroyed ca 1200 BC (Hess 1994:200-201). This inscrip-
tion, as well as several other inscriptions recovered from Stratum IV, mention the name "Canaan". According to
the Idrimi-inscription, he fled to the "land of Canaan" – taking with him his mother's relatives – where he stayed
until he could reclaim his kingdom (Killebrew 2005:95).
404
Hess 1994:200-201.
405
Parallels in texts from Alalakh and those in the Hebrew Bible are, inter alia, political treaties, the rise of Da-
vid's kingship compared to that of Idrimi, economic and social conditions, the concept of "release" during the
Jubilee year, family customs and the inheritance of family estates by daughters. For a detailed discussion of par-
allel texts, see Hess (1994:201-205).
406
Hess 1994:205-208. See also reference to, and discussion of, the habiru in § 2.4, § 2.5 and § 2.6.
407
Hess 1994:210.
408
Hess 1994:210.
409
Hess 1991:186.
410
Hess 1991:186. The name occurs on line 12 of Alalakh Text 196, B.M. 131537 (Hess 1991:186). Scholars
generally accept that stratum IV covers the period ca 1550-1473 BC (Green 1983:183).
411
Green 1983:181.
264
society is described as Hurrian,412 while the Middle Bronze Age is referred to as Old Babylo-
nian. The usage of Hurrian terms when referring to certain groups, cause linguistic problems
for the biblical scholar.413 The "Census Lists" tablets provide useful information regarding
the maryanne414 and other groups.415 Texts, particularly of Level IV, contain many Hurrian
personal names and loan words contributing to the knowledge of the Hurrian language. 416
The name ia-we-e is unusual for Late Bronze Age names known from Alalakh and elsewhere.
However, similar names do occur in Middle Bronze Age Mari and other places. These names
form part of the Amorite language stratum417 and have been grouped together as ia-PI type
names, which could be forms of the root, "to live". It always appears as the verb and first
element in a sentence name, followed by the name of a deity 418 or a hypocoristic suffix.419
The PI-sign has the possibility of different values, 420 though the reading 'wi is useful if ia-wi
is associated with the HWY root',421 and understood as either the Qal or Hif‛il422 form of the
verb.423
412
Hurrians: a group of people widely dispersed throughout most of the Ancient Near East. In the Hebrew Bible
they are referred to as Horites, Hivites and Jebusites. Certain social customs of the Patriarchal Age can be traced
back to the Hurrians (Speiser 1962:664).
413
Hess 1991:187.
414
In both Egyptian and cuneiform texts the term maryanne refers to young men, heroes or attendants who were
actually chariot-warriors. They were high-rank individuals (Green 1983:184-190).
415
Apart from the maryanne, the census lists refer to ehele, who occupied a place next in rank to the maryanne.
The term šūzubu – free persons with no feudal obligations – designate certain groups among the ehele. The
hanniahhe was an important group with occupations such as weavers, tanners, potters, blacksmiths and musi-
cians. The rural poor of Alalakh were called the sabē/sabū. The habiru in Alalakh were referred to as "organ-
ised military" who controlled certain areas in the state (Green 1983:184-203). It is 'evident that they [the habiru]
exercised considerable influence on the society as a whole' (Green 1983:198). According to Astour (1992a:144)
the habiru – who were normally described as a 'despised assemblage of refugees, fugitives, and outlaws without
civil rights' – appear to have been bearers of arms and a tribal unit of which a considerable number of men
owned chariots, therefore ranking them on the same level as the maryanne. The analysis of these different
groups (as mentioned above) provide important information on the social structure of Alalakh IV. For a detailed
discussion of these groups, see Green (1983:184-203).
416
Astour 1992a:144. Evidence of Hurrian influence 'makes it reasonable to believe that these people who were
already a representable proportion of the population in the 18th century, were being continually infused with
fresh arrivals … and subsequently emerged as the dominant political and cultural force at Alalakh' (Green
1983:202).
417
The Amorite language stratum is a name for West Semitic dialects of the Middle Bronze Age (Hess
1991:187).
418
Examples are: ia-wi- dIM, ia-wi- dDagan and ia-wi-AN (Hess 1991:187). For an explanation of ddingir, see
footnote in § 3.2.1.
419
Examples are ia-wi-ứ-um and ia-wi-ia (Hess 1991:187). Hypocoristicon: see footnote in § 2.3.
420
The syllabary of the Ugaritic scribes is typical for the Late Bronze northern Syrian and Anatolian text corpo-
ra, with a mixture of Akkadian sign values, such as the PI-sign values. The choice of a particular sign for the
representation of a specific phonetic sequence is often the result of scribal training (Huehnergard 1989:23, 32).
For a discussion of the different values of the PI-sign, see Huehnergard (1989:391-393).
421
Hess 1991:187.
422
See footnote in § 4.2 on the Hif‛il and Qal formations of the verb.
423
Hess 1991:187.
265
Hess424 argues that ia-wi may be related to the Alalakh name ia-we-e – the latter being an
analogous name with a vowel shift in the Amorite from ī to ē. There is also the possibility
that the name extends into the break on the tablet, followed by a divine name spelled with an
initial -e, or a hypocoristic suffix e-a – thus forming ia-we-e or ia-we-e-a. As ia-wi is associ-
ated with the hwy root, followed by a divine name, it could mean "the deity is", "the deity be-
comes" or "the deity causes to be". Hess 425 concludes that the ia-wi forms in personal names
– as well as the name ia-we-e from Alalakh – 'are not divine names but early verbal forms',
and 'is not to be identified with Yahweh', but rather be identified as an Amorite verbal form.
The personal name ia-we appears in a Late Bronze Age cuneiform text recovered at Amarna.
De Moor426 is tempted to connect the name – as a possible generic name, like the Shosu-Yhw
of the Egyptian texts – with Yahweh. This name occurs in one of the fourteenth century BC
Amarna Letters.427
A letter428 from Abimilki, 429 leader of Tyre, was sent to the Egyptian king. The letter was
written mainly in a typical formulaic manner with a description of Abimilki's subservience
and complaints about the king of Sidon's refusal to permit Abimilki access to wood or water.
Two cuneiform signs on line 8 have been read as ia-we. 430 The Egyptian king warned
Abimilki to be aware of ia-we. As the king would hardly have taken the trouble to alert
Abimilki against some unimportant individual, this ia-we was either a generic name 431 or that
of the leader of a group of formidable enemies. Abimilki repeatedly had trouble with the
habiru432 as well as with prince Aziru of Amurru, 433 who employed habiru as mercenaries.434
424
Hess 1991:187-188.
425
Hess 1991:188.
426
De Moor 1997:126.
427
See § 2.5 for a discussion of the Amarna Letters discovered in a royal archive at Tell el-Amarna. There was
official diplomatic correspondence among these texts– written in Akkadian – between the Egyptian pharaohs and
their Palestinian vassals, as well as between Assyrian and Babylonian rulers (Goren et al 2002:196). See also
§ 4.3.4.
428
Amarna Letter EA 154. The text comprises 29 lines of two or three words each. (Hess 1991:183). The letter
is dated ca 1350 BC (De Moor 1997:125).
429
Abimilki is also known as Abi-Milku, mayor of Tyre (De Moor 1997:125). Tyre was the main seaport on the
Phoenician coast, comprising two harbours, of which one was situated on an island. The city actively took part
in sea-trade which eventually led to the Egyptian campaigns to control the Phoenician coast (Wiseman
1982f:1227).
430
Hess 1991:183.
431
A generic name like the Shosu-Yhw of the Egyptian texts (De Moor 1997:126). See § 4.3.4.
432
habiru: see § 2.4, § 2.5 and § 2.6.
433
The term "amurru" first appeared in Old Akkadian sources as a general indication of "the West", with specific
reference to the west wind and the geographical areas lying to the west of Mesopotamia. The term frequently
refers to the inhabitants of the western region in an ethnic sense (Mendenhall 1992a:199).
434
De Moor 1997:126.
266
De Moor435 mentions that it 'is therefore very tempting to connect this "Iawe" with the
warriors of YHWH' indicating that if his hypothesis proves to be correct, there is a strong
possibility that Yahweh's people were habiru serving prince Aziru. De Moor436 adds that 'this
early connection between the Amorites [Amurru] and the Proto-Israelites is far from unlikely'.
The question arises whether this ia-we is 'the divine name Yahweh, or an early form of it, pre-
served in a personal name?' 437 Line 8 of the letter in question is only partially preserved. The
cuneiform sign ia is followed by the PI sign. In the Akkadian texts from Ugarit the PI sign is
normally transliterated as wa, we, wi, wu, or as ya, ye, yi, yu, and not as pi.438 However, this
sign can be read as pi in proper names in the Amarna texts. Should this interpretation be cor-
rect, the particular name cannot be equivalent to, or related to, Yahweh, but could possibly be
read as ia-pu – the place name Joppa, which is spelt elsewhere in the Amarna texts as ia-
pu.439 One of the points in favour of reading ia-pi/ia-pu as a place name – instead of ia-we –
is the context of the letter. According to Abimilki, he also had problems with Sidon, a coastal
city in the region of Tyre. Another coastal city, Joppa, therefore also might have been in-
volved in some sort of conflict. It should be noted that the first part of the word is lost and for
that reason it is not possible to determine whether the word is a place name, a personal name
or a common noun. 440 Hess441 concludes that 'it is unlikely that the signs written in EA 154,
line 8, were intended to spell a personal name reflecting the divine name Yahweh'.
4.3.8 Mesha Stele

'The Mesha Inscription or Moabite Stone must be one of the most well-known of Ancient
Near Eastern inscriptions relating to the text and substance of the Hebrew Scriptures.' 442
The Mesha Stele is a black basalt slab with an inscription written in the Moabite language,
which resembles the language of the Hebrew Bible. 443 It is generally dated ca 840-820 BC.
435
De Moor 1997:126.
436
De Moor 1997:126.
437
Hess 1991:183.
438
Hess 1991:183-184. See earlier footnote in this paragraph on sign values, such as the PI-sign.
439
Arguments in favour of this reading are discussed by Hess (1991:184-186).
440
The reading could even be such as ba-ia-wa. Bayawa was a city leader and scribe of Amarna Letters EA 215
and 216 (Hess 1991:186).
441
Hess 1991:186.
442
Tidwell 1996:490. See ANET 320-21; KAI 181 (Ehrlich 2001:63).
443
This stele was discovered in Jordan in 1868. The stone – which is approximately one metre in height – con-
tained thirty-four lines in ancient alphabetic script, analogous to the Paleo-Hebrew script. Unfortunately, local
Bedouins shattered the stone and distributed it among tribal leaders when news spread about German and French
interest. Fortunately, a French scholar had made a type of facsimile impression – a "squeeze" – of the inscription
prior to its destruction. More or less two-thirds of the stone was eventually retrieved and completely recon-
structed (Arnold & Beyer 2002:160). The inscription could have been written just before the Israelite king
267
The text, written in the name of Mesha 444 – king of the Moabites – describes his successful
campaign against the Israelites during the reign of Jehoram. 445 This inscription has a direct
bearing on the contents of 2 Kings 3:14-27 in the Hebrew Bible, which mentions that Mesha
came in revolt against the Israelites on account of tribute the Moabites had to pay to the
Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Hebrew text furthermore describes that Jehoram went into
coalition with Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the king of Edom, to attack Mesha. 446 According to
the biblical text,447 the Israelites were able to overcome the Moabites and destroy their land.
The biblical account ends on a strange note, reporting the withdrawal of the Israelites alt-
hough they actually conquered the Moabites, as Mesha 'took his oldest son who was to reign
in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall'. 448 Child sacrifice was prohibited
for the Israelites. The Moabite inscription, however, claims Mesha's victory as a reason for
the withdrawal of the Israelites. Although the Mesha Stele's authenticity was initially ques-
tioned it is highly unlikely that the correct form of letters of the ninth century BC could have
been forged. The different accounts of the outcome of the battle 'can be explained in terms of
the propagandistic nature which usually holds true for official political texts', and 'there are
enough resemblances to assume that the Moabite stone and the text of 2 Kings 3 refer to the
same historical events'. 449 'In fact, the MI [Moabite inscription] as a whole reads almost like a
narrative from the Hebrew Bible.'450
The significance of this inscription lies therein that it explicitly mentions 'Israel', its God
'Yahweh', its king 'Omri', as well as 'his son' and 'his house'. 451 Certain biblical place names
Ahab's death – ca 853/852 BC – or approximately a decade later. Line 8 refers to Omri's son – Ahab. The lan-
guage of the inscription could initially only be compared to classical Hebrew and certain Phoenician texts. Some
significant texts have since been discovered providing comparative material (Dearman & Mattingly 1992:708).
444
Mesha succeeded his father who reigned for thirty years in Moab (lines 2 and 3 of the inscription). Apart
from the description of his campaign against the Israelites, the inscription on the stele records Mesha's building
of towns and regulating the water supply. 'His rebellion may have been an attempt to gain direct control of his
considerable wool trade with Tyre' (Wiseman 1982e:763). See 2 Kings 3:4.
445
The inscription refers to the son of Omri – Ahab – but the biblical text mentions Jehoram, son of Ahab, who
reigned in the Northern Kingdom 852-841 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
446
2 Kings 3:6-9.
447
2 Kings 3:21-26.
448
2 Kings 3:27.
449
Scheffler 2000:86.
450
Dearman & Mattingly 1992:709.
451
A translation of relevant lines reads as follows:
'Ia (1) I am Mesha, the son of Chemosh [-yatti], the king of Moab, the Di(2)bonite.
……
Ib And I made this high-place for Chemosh in Karchoh,
……
IIa Omr(5)i was the king of Israel,
and he oppressed Moab for many days,
for Chemosh was angry with his la(6)nd.
……
268
are also mentioned. 452 It is the earliest known West Semitic text mentioning Yahweh. It de-
scribes the command to Mesha from Chemosh453 to take all the "vessels" of Yahweh from Ne-
bo – probably referring to an Israelite sanctuary there – and place it before Chemosh. Yahweh
is evidently 'not presented here as a Moabite deity' but 'as the official god of the Israelites,
worshipped throughout Samaria, as far as its outer borders'. 454 Nebo, situated in north-
western Moab, was a border town. This inscription is linguistically, religiously and historical-
ly important on account of its close relation to the Hebrew Bible. 455 It suggests significant
similarities between Yahweh and Chemosh, relating to character and their relationship with
their devotees.456
A literary analysis457 indicates that Mesha's successes were not recorded at random on the in-
scription, but several literary devices were used to enliven a well-constructed text. However,
from an historical point of view, certain problems can be pointed out. 458 Smelik459 suggests a
reconstruction of the historical events. Scholars postulate 'a complex historical scenario about
the creation of a Moabite kingdom out of some smaller territorial entities under Mesha, king
of Dibon.'460 On account of the close relationship between the Moabite and Hebrew lan-
guages, the meaning of certain items of vocabulary is confirmed mutually in the two lan-
guages.461 Parker 462 speculates whether the authors of the books of Kings had made use of
IId And Chemosh said to me:

Go, take Nebo from Israel!
And I w(15)ent in the night,
and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon,
and I to(16)ok it,
and I killed [its] whole population,

……
for I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Chemosh.
And from there, I took th[e ves](18)sels of YWHH,
and I hauled them before the face of Chemosh'
(Smelik 1992:63-65).
452
Biblical place names, mentioned on the stele, are: Gad (Nm 1:14), Ataroth (Nm 32:34), Dibon (Nm 32:34),
Aroer (Nm 32:34), Baal-meon (Nm 32:38), Kiriathaim (Jos 13:19), Bezer (Dt 4:43), Nebo (Nm 33:47), Arnon
(Nm 21:13), Beth-diblathhaim (Jr 48:22) and Horonaim (Is 15:5) (Lemaire 2004:368).
453
See footnote on Kamoš in § 2.3.
454
455
Thompson 1982:789.
456
Miller 2000b:216. For example, when Chemosh is displeased with his people, he forsakes them, delivers
them to their enemies and ultimately saves them; Chemosh commanded Mesha in words similar to those used by
Yahweh (Thompson 1982:789).
457
For a detailed literary analysis, see Smelik (1992:59-73).
458
Relevant historical problems are discussed by Smelik (1992:73-92).
459
Smelik (1992:90-92).
460
Zevit 2001:620.
461
Tidwell (1996:490-497) discusses, for instance, the reference in the inscription to the hmslt b’rnn that Mesha
built.
462
Parker 2000:357-376.
269
royal inscriptions. He reaches the conclusion that 'evidence to date does not support claims
that the authors of Kings [books of Kings] used royal epigraphic monuments as sources for
their history', however, new finds 'could significantly alter the picture'. 463 Yet, in the light of
the Mesha inscription, it appears that the composers of Kings did have access to an Israelite
king list.464 Long and Sneed465 propose a socio-literary reading of 2 Kings 3. Sociological
criticism focuses on the entire biblical society, and not only on the royalty and elites. 'Biblical
literary criticism, which is primarily synchronic and attentive to the final form of the text, re-
acts to the unending fragmentation that characterizes the older source criticism.'466 The text
of 2 Kings 3 is an excellent example to demonstrate the potential of a socio-literary reading.
The Deuteronomistic History was composed mainly to exonerate Yahweh from the idea of the
Mesopotamian and other gods' domination and to justify the acts of Yahweh – as has been
demonstrated in 2 Kings 3. 467 Garbini468 points to discrepancies in the chronology as record-
ed in the biblical text, and that as furnished by the Mesha inscription. He mentions that alt-
hough this external information seems to contradict the biblical text, it allows us to recover an
earlier arrangement in the biblical text, 'before the chronological framework produced by the
Deuteronomistic redactor'.469 Relying solely on non-biblical evidence, the religious profile of
Israel can be described to some degree. Mesha refers to the 'vessels of YHWH' from Nebo,
thereby testifying 'to Yhwh being an Israelite deity, worshipped in a Transjordanian sanctuary
in disputed territory'. 470
Regarding the debate about the inscription – bytdwd – found on fragments excavated at Tel
Dan, 471 a "proof-text" has been identified on the Mesha Stele by Lemaire. Both expressions
have been found on ninth century BC texts. The Tel Dan debate concerns the interpretation
of bytdwd as "house of David". 472 Lemaire473 proposes that – after studying the Mesha Stele
minutely – the damaged section at the end of line 31, should be read 'Beth-[Da]vid', thereby
designating the kingdom of Judah. This implies that David should be considered the founder
of the Judean kingdom. He indicates that this reference to 'Beth-David' has been confirmed
463
Parker 2000:375.
464
Parker 2000:376.
465
Long & Sneed 2004:253. See Long and Sneed (2004:257-271) for a detailed discussion of their literary and
sociological analysis of 2 Kings 3.
466
Long & Sneed 2004:253.
467
Long & Sneed 2004:267, 271.
468
Garbini 1988:33-37.
469
Garbini 1988:37.
470
Davies 1992:70-71.
471
For a discussion of this inscription and the ensuing debates, see § 2.14.4.
472
Ehrlich 2001:62-63.
473
Lemaire 2004:367-369.
270
– to some degree – by the phrase 'Beth-David' on the Tel Dan stele, which intimates that this
expression was part of the Levant's 474 diplomatic language.475 Halpern476 denotes that the ex-
istence of a David should no longer be debated, although revisionists continue to dispute the
existence of a central Israelite state.
4.3.9 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud

The discovery of the inscriptions and drawings at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud477 brought to the fore the
significance of a consort for deities in the Ancient Near East – and in particular for Yahweh.
Inscriptions, as well as miscellaneous drawings on two pithoi,478 have since generated numer-
ous debates and scholarly interest. The particular 'phrase … yhwh … w’šrth, with its tantaliz-
ing implications of a Yahwistic polytheism' has caused a surge of publications in scholarly
journals. 479
As indicated in paragraph 2.9, various drawings appear on both sides of pithos A, as well as
the benediction:
of Shomron [Samaria] and his Asherah'. 480
On another storage jar – probably placed at the gate as a votive – a second inscription reads:
'Amaryo said: Tell my lord, may you be well
and be blessed by Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah.
May he bless and keep you and be with you.'481
These inscriptions, referring to "Yahweh … and his Asherah", raise the question whether the
Israelite God, Yahweh, had a consort, and seem 'to suggest quite explicitly that Yahweh did
have a consort'.482 Taylor483 is of the opinion that a substantial number of Israelites believed
that Yahweh had a partner or spouse. Many scholars agree that these epigraphic finds, as well
as supporting evidence – such as the Taanach cult stands 484 – endorse the view 'that the
474
Levant: eastern part of the Mediterranean with its islands and neighbouring countries (Oxford University
Press 1987:970).
475
Lemaire 2004:369.
476
Halpern 1997:314.
477
For a description of the site –also known as Horvat Teman – see § 2.9, as well as Zevit (2001:370-405).
478
Pithoi: see footnote in § 2.9.
479
Margalit 1990:274.
480
Scheffler 2000:102.
481
Scheffler 2000:105.
482
Taylor 1994:53.
483
Taylor 1994:53.
484
See § 2.13 under the subtitle "Taanach".
271
goddess Asherah was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh in both Israel and Judah during
the period of the Israelite monarchy'. 485 Current perspectives on the history of the Israelite
religion have been influenced significantly by these inscriptions, as well as those discovered
at Khirbet ’el-Qom. 486 These finds also 'provide evidence for topographically distinct mani-
festations of Yahweh'.487 According to Korpel, 488 the crude language of these blessing formu-
las, as well as the surroundings where they were discovered, gives an indication of folk reli-
gion. It furthermore exhibits the possible theology and mode of worship that was prevalent in
Israel. 489
Zeev Meshel, 490 the excavator at the site of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud, suggests that the site was a reli-
gious centre that may have served as a wayside shrine for Israelite kings on their journeys to
Elat and Ezion-geber, as well as for pilgrims travelling to southern Sinai. The remains at the
site indicate a connection with Northern Israel. Occupied only for a few years, it was proba-
bly inhabited by a small group of priests. Typological and palaeographic analysis points to a
period during the reign of Joash, 491 king of Israel. The site may also have been frequented by
local tribes as a place of pilgrimage. Theophoric names with the element yw492 – characteris-
tic for Yahwistic names of the Northern Kingdom – suggest that travellers from there were
the principal users of this road station. The formula "Yahweh and his Asherah" may have
been written on behalf of the king or an official of the court. It is therefore significant that the
greeting is in the name of "Yahweh of Samaria", suggesting that Yahweh and his consort were
worshipped in Samaria.493 Cultic rites practised in the domestic cult by ancient Israel seem-
ingly included a goddess, presumably identified with Asherah, symbolising 'a divine being in
which several goddesses (Asherah, Astarte and Anat) are conflated'. 494
The popularity of syncretistic Yahwism during the eighth century BC possibly influenced the
prophet Hosea495 to appropriate the idea and imagery implied by "Yahweh and his Asherah"
485
Hadley 1997:169.
486
See § 4.3.10 for a discussion on Khirbet ’el-Qom.
487
Van der Toorn 1992:80. These inscriptions refer to "Yahweh of Shomron [Samaria]" and "Yahweh of Te-
man".
488
Korpel 2001:147.
489
Mayes 1997:65.
490
Meshel 1992:108-109.
491
ca 801-786 BC (Meshel 1992:109).
492
Personal names, such as Obadyaw, Shem‛yaw, Hilyaw, Amaryaw, ‛Aziyaw, Shakanyaw and Eliyaw, are at-
tested in the inscriptions (Dijkstra 2001b:21).
493
Dijkstra 2001b:19, 21, 29. See also 1 Kings 16:33; 2 Kings 13:6.
494
Vriezen 2001:80. See also the discussion on "Female figurines", as subtitle in § 2.13.
495
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud was occupied during the mid-ninth to mid-eighth century BC (Dever 2005:160). Although
the period of Hosea's ministry is described in Hosea 1:1, it is significant that four Judean kings and only one Is-
raelite king, Jeroboam, is named, while Hosea's entire ministry was in the Northern Kingdom. The prophecy of
272
and implement it as the 'cornerstone of a new Israelite theology', 496 wherein Yahweh has a
"wife", named Israel. The prophet, thus, substitutes Asherah by Israel. 497 The writings of
Hosea were probably a polemical response to Israel's religious syncretism threatening to
transform Yahwism into a Canaanite fertility cult. If Israel is Yahweh's wife, she owes him
respect, obedience, fidelity and love. Yahweh, in return, is obliged to care for and shelter Is-
rael.498 The husband-and-wife imagery was particularly useful to reflect the potential rela-
tionship between Yahweh and Israel, notably as applied within the ideological and theological
dialogues as expressed by the prophetic books. Therefore, in their discourses, the literati of
ancient Israel utilised the marital metaphor as a way to understand and communicate the na-
ture of Israel's relationship with Yahweh. The book of Hosea was most likely – like most, if
not all, biblical texts – written by male literati for an exclusively male readership. 499
Both the sacred marriage – hieros gamos500 – and the sacred tree, or Tree of Life, which
equals the Asherah, stand at the centre of Jewish mysticism. 501 The Holy of Holies is called
the bedchamber for the hieros gamos, which has its roots in old Jewish traditions, and is re-
flected in various sources in a figurative, symbolic way. 502 The Asherah of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud
was seemingly worshipped with the "full array of rites", as described, inter alia, in 2 Kings
23:7. This text mentions that the women wove "hangings" – or "vestments" – for the
Asherah. This practice was also well known in other Ancient Near Eastern temples. Beauti-
fully woven cloth was found at the site of Kuntillet ‛Ajrud, 'undoubtedly used in the local
cult'.503
the fall of the house of Jehu (Hs 1:4), which occurred with the death of Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II, in 746
BC, is possibly an indication that Hosea began his ministry in 747 BC, shortly before the death of Jeroboam II
(Smart 1962:651). According to Kitchen and Mitchell (1982:196-197) Zechariah's reign is dated 753-752 BC
and Hosea's ministry ca 755-722 BC.
496
Margalit 1990:283.
497
Margalit 1990:279, 283-284.
498
Margalit 1990:285-286.
499
Ben Zvi 2004:363-366.
500
See footnote in § 3.7. The sacred marriage, which was usually a sexual union or marriage between a god and
goddess, was mostly connected with some form of fertility cult. In the ancient Mesopotamian religions it could
also be a consummation between human beings representing a deity. Some scholars believe that a common fer-
tility cult was practised in the Ancient Near East including the worship of a Great Mother goddess – personifying
fertility – and her young spouse who died seasonally and was resurrected, embodying growth (Klein 1992:866,
869). For further discussions of the sacred marriage rites in the Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian religions,
see Klein (1992:866-869).
501
Jewish mysticism or so-called Kabbalah (Cabbalah): see footnote in § 4.1. 'The Kabbalah literature revolves
around the ideas of hieros gamos and the sacred tree' (Weinfeld 1996:515). For a discussion of these phenomena
within the Kabbalah, see Weinfeld (1996:515-529).
502
Weinfeld 1996:520-522. Christian sources reflect the idea of "sacred marriage", as expressed, inter alia, in
Revelation 21:2, 'I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband'.
503
Weinfeld 1996:526.
273
Emerton504 speculates on the religious implications of the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria" and
"Yahweh of Teman". The former is obviously an indication that Yahweh was worshipped in
Samaria – the phrase probably written by a traveller from there. Teman could denote the
South in general, but – as the name is associated with Edom – could refer to a region of Edom
or, could have been used as a synonym of the land of Edom. 505 The blessing that makes use
of the name "Yahweh of Teman", therefore, obviously invoked the protection of the God who
came from the southern region. 506 Peckham507 is of the opinion that the eclectic dedications
might have been left by merchants from Phoenician Tyre. These tradesmen were renowned
for their overland trade dealings with Edom and Arabia. 508 Dijkstra,509 however, indicates
that the texts and drawings were probably 'randomly scribbled by bored clerks' who used this
road station as a local administrative office. Although the pithoi have been reassembled by
excavators almost completely in their original shape, it does not necessarily imply that the in-
scriptions and paintings were made on the intact storage jars. Large sherds from broken stor-
age jars could have been used as "scrap paper". Fragments of similar "rough drafts" have
been found. The drawings, in different coloured ink, were made by skilled, as well as less
skilled, artisans. The script of the inscriptions is, however, of skilled quality and it is, there-
fore, unlikely that it had been left by travellers or shepherds. 510
Regarding some of the drawings on pithos A (see Figure 4 hereafter), depicting a cow suck-
ling a calf, Bes-like figures and a lyre-player, various interpretations have been suggested.
Zevit 511 mentions that the drawings were made with thin and wide lines, the latter possibly
indicating the importance of a particular character. The randomly scattered figures – some
superimposed on one another – may be without any meaning. Overlapping figures could be
an indication of unsophisticated art, such as discovered in prehistoric caves. The one scene
504
Emerton 1982:9.
505
Unless – as suggested by the Kenite hypothesis – Yahweh was worshipped in the South by nomadic groups,
and this cult was to be found in Edom and continued as late as 800 BC, the reference to Teman at Kuntillet
‛Ajrud indicates that Yahweh had come from the southern region which belongs to him in a special way (Emer-
ton 1982:9-10). Habakkuk 3:3 mentions that 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran'.
506
Emerton 1982:19.
507
Peckham 2001:23.
508
A sixth century BC Phoenician inscription from Saqqara reads, 'I have blessed thee by Baal Zaphon', imply-
ing a wish as well as being a statement (Emerton 1982:2).
509
Dijkstra 2001b:26.
510
Dijkstra 2001b:26.
511
Zevit 2001:381, 383, 385, 387.
274
on pithos A is dominated by two Bes-like512 figures, which are easily recognisable with their
feathered crowns, stylised leonine features, square-cut beards and the typical lion tail between
Figure 4. Pithos A: Cow suckling her calf, Bes-like figures, lyre-player and inscription
( Scheffler 2000:102)513
their legs. 'The ‛Ajrud Bes figures have uncharacteristic, but not unattested, humanoid tor-
sos.'514 Due to the popularity of this motif on various artefacts in Syria-Palestine, the figures
on pithos A can be identified easily but, unfortunately, give little indication of their meaning.
A borrowed Bes figure – in countries other than Egypt – could easily be plied according to
local traditions. Therefore, Zevit 515 is of the opinion that 'in the ‛Ajrud context, they signi-
fied, but did not necessarily represent, a likeness of YHWH'. Dever 516 indicates that the Bes-
figure on the left is apparently male, while the figure with the breast on the right seems to be
female. Bes, being an androgynous517 deity, could appear either as male or female. As an ap-
otropaic518 deity – who wards off evil – Bes was very popular, both in Egypt and in the Le-
vant. His presence at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud is therefore not surprising.
512
Bes, the Egyptian god or demon was personified as a bandy-legged deformed dwarf, or as a lion-man. His
animal hair, ears, tail, and ugly human face was more like that of a lion than a human dwarf. He played instru-
ments, such as the flute, harp and tambourine, danced or wielded a sword and knife to protect pregnant women
and those giving birth. Bes-gods were often depicted in an erotic context, exhibiting an enormous phallus. The-
se representations allegedly brought about pregnancy and childbirth (Te Velde 1999:173).
513
Available in the public domain at www.bibleorigins.net/KuntilletAjrudYahwehAsherah.html.
514
Zevit 2001:387. During the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Ages, Bes figures were very popular in Syria-
Palestine. They are widely attested on different artefacts, such as ivories, amulets and drinking utensils. On
artefacts found in Syria-Palestine, Bes is presented with and without the feathered crown (Zevit 2001:387-388).
515
Zevit 2001:388-389. Zevit (2001:389) mentions that the 'identification with YHWH is not inherent in the
drawings' but is derived from a deliberation of the depictions as a whole.
516
Dever 2005:163-167.
517
A description of "androgynous" is incorporated in a footnote in § 3.2.1.
518
Apotropaism: see footnote in § 2.12.
275
Margalit, 519 however, denotes that, 'despite some superficial resemblance', the figures cannot
be interpreted as Bes as they are bovine and not leonine. The phrase "yhwh.šmrn.w’šrth" was
intended to describe the male and female figures. The objective of the artist was thus 'to rep-
resent a male bovine deity and his smaller bovine consort in a traditional "man-and-wife" pos-
ture, reflecting the basic meaning of the term asherah'. 520 In the abovementioned phrase,521
Asherah functions as a common noun meaning "wife, consort". The smaller figure appears to
be standing behind the larger figure, thus portraying the divine couple as referred to in the in-
scription as "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" – his consort. The word ’šrh intimates
"she-who-follows (her husband)". 522 The idea of "walking behind" was part of the marital
metaphor. A faithful wife was "an asherah" who followed her husband. The Canaanite storm
god Ba‛al523 – a term meaning husband, master, lord – was Yahweh's main competitor in Ca-
naan for Israel's affections. The act of following Ba‛al could signify the married woman
walking behind her husband, alluding to the nuptial aspect and influence of the Ba‛al-Astarte
fertility cult. The main mythological role of the Ugaritic goddess Athirat – Israel's Asherah524
– was to be the consort of the supreme Canaanite god El. Therefore the phrase "Yahweh …
and his Asherah" could literally mean "Yahweh and his consort".525
Day526 differs from the views mentioned above therein that "his Asherah", interpreted as the
goddess Asherah, should 'be rejected, since in biblical Hebrew (unlike some other Semitic
languages) personal names are unknown with a pronominal suffix. … [the] most probable
view, [is therefore] namely, that Asherah denotes the name of a cult object'. 527 The Asherah
in the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud inscriptions – as a cult object symbolising the goddess – could thus,
alongside Yahweh, have been invoked as a source of blessing. Day528 furthermore indicates
that these particular texts 'reflect a religious syncretism in which Asherah was closely related
to Yahweh, presumably as his consort'. Since Asherah originally had been El's consort, and
El and Yahweh were equated in Israel, it stands to reason that, in certain circles, Asherah
would have been regarded Yahweh's consort. Hadley529 agrees that, on account of the
519
Margalit 1990:274-284.
520
Margalit 1990:275.
521
yhwh.šmrn.w’šrth.
522
See discussion in § 3.2.1, in this regard.
523
524
See discussion of Athirat/Asherah in § 3.2.1.
525
Margalit 1990:284. For arguments in favour of identifying the two figures as man-and-wife, see Margalit
(1990:288), and for arguments against such an identification, see Margalit (1990:289).
526
Day 1986:391-393.
527
Day 1986:392. See § 3.2.2 for a discussion of the possibility that "Asherah" in the Hebrew Bible refers to a
cult object.
528
Day 1986:392-393.
529
Hadley 2000:124.
276
pronominal suffix, it is unlikely that "his Asherah" in the inscriptions refers to the goddess.
Emerton530 mentions that it is not unlikely that in some forms of Israelite religion – popular or
official – Asherah may have been the wife of Yahweh. However, in accordance with Day and
Hadley – as mentioned above – he indicates that a pronominal suffix attached to a personal
name is not consistent with the Hebrew idiom. The Asherah of the inscriptions does not offer
direct proof that she was the consort of Yahweh.
According to Taylor,531 continuity could be assumed between the Asherahs of the Taanach
cult stands532 and of the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud. The cult stands show the asherah as
a cult symbol alongside a "portrait" of the goddess, therefore not separating the symbol and
the goddess. Should the inscriptions thus refer only to a cult symbol named "asherah", it
could imply Yahweh's association with the goddess herself.
Dever533 indicates that, apart from the Bes-like figures on pithos A, there is also a drawing of
a semi-nude female seated on a type of "lion-throne"534 which is often associated with kings
and deities in Ancient Near Eastern iconography. He argues 'explicitly that both the inscrip-
tions and the female figure, although by different hands, refer to the goddess Asherah, in this
case coupled with Yahweh as "his" consort'.535 A large collection of inscriptional evidence
from the Iron Age indicates that Asherah was frequently referred to as the "Lion Lady". 536
Zevit 537 identifies this particular figure as a lyre-player. As she is portrayed seated, possibly
on a characteristic "leonine cherub", she may represent a goddess, however, this does not val-
idate the divinity of the lyre player.
In addition to these drawings on pithos A, there is also a depiction of a cow with a suckling
calf, as well as another scene of two ibexes 538 nibbling on a tree – the symbol of fertility.
Drawings on pithos B are, inter alia, characters in a processional scene, presumably in
530
Emerton 1982:13-14, 19.
531
Taylor 1994:53-54.
532
See § 2.13, subtitle "Taanach".
533
Dever 2006:470.
534
"Lion thrones", similar to the one in the drawing on pithos A, were common in Ancient Near Eastern icono-
graphy. They were never associated with ordinary human beings, but always with deities or kings. Lions were
the symbols of ferocity and were often represented as cherubs with wings – symbols of divine presence and
power. A low footstool was nearly always in front of the throne. In the case of the drawing at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud,
there is no footstool – the figure's feet are dangling in the air. The claw-like feet, panelled sides and slightly tilt-
ed back are an indication that this is not the familiar "side chair". Although primitive, it seems clear what the
"artist" had in mind, therefore a female deity in a cult centre could only be Asherah (Dever 2005:164-165).
535
Dever 2006:470.
536
Dever 2005:166.
537
Zevit 2001:386-387.
538
See footnote in § 2.13 under the subtitle "Lachish ewer".
277
gestures of prayer. Taylor539 mentions that these gestures of devotion are undeniably skyward
– maybe towards the sun. He believes that many 'Israelites considered the sun a symbol or
icon of Israel's God, Yahweh'. Several biblical passages refer to the Israelites' veneration of
the sun. 540 For a detailed discussion of the different drawings and inscriptions, see Zevit. 541
North542 speculates whether the inscriptions under discussion are in the true sense "cultic",
and whether the inscription on pithos A was intended for the particular drawings. Graffiti in
antiquity differ from that known in modern times. A large proportion of graffiti from ancient
times are cultic. The graffiti from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud could be an expression of popular religion
or syncretism. The 'combining of two incompatible divinities could therefore have been the
kind of ignorant syncretism which does not point to any real existing "cultus" at all'; however,
the ‛Ajrud inscriptions are 'too distinct to be dismissed as random'. 543 Yet, an average wor-
shipper may have formulated a pious petition "for Yahweh … and his symbol".
4.3.10 Khirbet ’el-Qom

A burial cave, close to Khirbet ’el-Qom, 544 dated ca 725 BC, yielded the following inscrip-
tion:
'For ’Uriyahu the governor (or the rich), his inscription.
Blessed is ’Uriyahu by Yahweh.
From his enemies he has been saved
By his a/Asherah.
(Written) by ‛Oniyahu.'545
Together with this inscription is a distinctly carved open, outstretched human hand, as symbol
of good luck. 546 The hand-symbol and "blessing formula" on the carving is probably a wish
for prosperity from "the hand of Yahweh".547 Linguistic and palaeographic difficulties were
encountered with the deciphering of the inscription. Apart from vertical grooves on the
539
Taylor 1994:53, 90.
540
Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 23:5, 11; Jeremiah 8:2; Ezekiel 8:16.
541
Zevit 2001: 381-405. See also Dever (2005:160-167).
542
North 1989:118, 124, 133-137.
543
North 1989:134.
544
See § 2.10.
545
Dever 2005:131-132.
546
This hand resembles the much later Islamic "Hand of Fatima" (Dever 2005:132). See footnote in § 2.10 on
"Hamza".
547
Dever 2005:131-133. For examples in the Hebrew Bible, see footnote in § 2.10.
278
substrate of the carving, which could be read as parts of letters, the letters are well defined as
well as blended.548
Zevit 549 indicates that the inscription was written by Abiyahu, 550 who refers to an important
episode in Uryahu's551 life. The tomb belonged to the prosperous Uryahu, on whose behalf
Abiyahu interceded, entrusting him to Yahweh by invoking the name of a goddess, Asherah.
The nature of the incantation suggests that Asherah stood in such a relationship to Yahweh –
who was the healer – that an appeal invoked in her name could influence Yahweh. In antiqui-
ty the "hand of blessing" – as in the carving – had the same power as a talisman to ward off
evil. It does, however, seem that the left hand – in this case – is probably unrelated to the
"hand of Fatima", 552 but possibly represents the left hand of Uryahu, extended to grasp the
supporting hand of Yahweh – or maybe even that of Abiyahu. Zevit 553 concludes that any
discussion of the religion of the Israelites should 'take into account that most Israelites, Yah-
wists in the main, knew their patron to whom they called by name, knew his consort Asherah,
and knew other deities as well'.
Margalit 554 theorises that the Khirbet ’el-Qom inscription – as well as those at Kuntillet
‛Ajrud – provide sufficient evidence of the Ba‛al-Astarte fertility cult and its 'paradigmatic
man-and-wife symbolism' in the life the Israelites. He furthermore indicates that seemingly
devout Yahwists, such as Uriyahu, worshipped Yahweh as if he were Ba‛al, a fertility deity in
need of a female partner. Yahweh was not necessarily replaced by Ba‛al, but rather trans-
formed into Ba‛al's image. Mayes555 mentions that the deuteronomic proclamation, 'Hear, O
Israel: The Lord [Yahweh] our God, the Lord [Yahweh] is one', 556 is not only an affirmation of
the oneness of Yahweh – in contrast to the 'multiplicity of the manifestations of Baal or El' –
but rather a rejection of prevalent Israelite religious practice wherein Yahweh was worshipped
in different forms and manifestations. The question arises whether the inscriptions indicate
that Yahweh did have a consort, or whether we are 'dealing with a plurality of gods … [which]
548
Zevit 2001:360-361. See Zevit (2001:360-370), North (1989:124-127) and Meshel (1992:103-109) for a de-
tailed discussion of this inscription.
549
Zevit 2001:368-369.
550
Dever (2005:131-132) interprets the name of the "author" of the blessing as ‛Oniyahu, and not Abiyahu.
551
Dever (2005:131-132) interprets the name of the prosperous – or the governor – as ’Uriyahu, and not Uryahu.
552
See earlier footnote in this paragraph, as well as a footnote in § 2.10 on "Hamza".
553
Zevit 2001:652.
554
Margalit 1990:281, 283.
555
Mayes 1997:62.
556
Deuteronomy 6:4.
279
might even reflect a "Polyjahwism" which belies the confessional statement contained in Deu-
teronomy 6:4'.557
Archaeological finds, such as the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom, are
according to Vriezen,558 a clear indication that the names of gods, such as Asherah, do appear
alongside the name of Yahweh.
4.3.11 Amorite onomastics559

Bedouin invaders from the north-western Syrian plains are often referred to as Amorites in
Akkadian and Sumerian texts.560 Amorite parallels to certain personal names in early biblical
history have been identified. It is, however, significant that some of these cognates disap-
peared from the name tradition, of which the most prominent are the names of the patriarchs
Abraham and Jacob. No conclusive evidence has been found for an Amorite cognate of the
name Isaac. Only one Abraham and one Jacob appear in the Hebrew Bible. Amorite parallels
provide an important chronological framework for the name traditions underlying early bibli-
cal narratives. As in Hebrew, Amorite names have meaning. At the same time, Amorite
proper names are valuable for research in biblical onomastics.
Regarding the much-debated matter of the form and meaning of the Tetragrammaton, the
question may be raised whether Amorite evidence contributes to this issue. Many scholars
interpret the divine name hwhy as a prefix form of a verb, derived from the verb hāyā.561
There is, however, no supporting evidence for a corresponding divine name in Amorite.
There is only one definite occurrence in Amorite of a verb phrase name that functioned as a
divine name, namely dia-ak-ru-ub- DINGIR/el/il – El blessed. 562 'If the name form underlying
the Tetragrammaton is of verbal origin, the variation of long and short forms can be matched
by a corresponding variation in Amorite one-constituent names of verbal type … . However,
Amorite cannot explain why in Hebrew the longer form hwhy only occurs as a one-constituent
divine name, never as a component of a noun phrase or verb phrase name.' 563 Personal names
– of which approximately six thousand have been collected – are the only direct evidence
557
Human 1999:493.
558
Vriezen 2001:79-80.
559
Onomastics: see footnote in § 3.5.
560
Texts dated from the latter part of the Old Akkadian Dynasty (ca 2500-2355 BC) and the Ur III Dynasty
(2112-2004 BC) (Bodine 1994:27,36).
561
562
Knudsen 1999:202, 205, 208-209, 221. Parallels for Amorite names have been found at, inter alia, Mari and
Alalakh. See Knudsen (1999:209-210).
563
Knudsen 1999:211. For Amorite parallels of biblical names, see discussion in Knudsen (1999:211-221).
280
available for the Amorite language as no written archives or writing system is known for
Amorite. Most of these personal names are "sentence names" which include verbs, as well as
other parts of speech. They are characteristic of Amorite, while one-word names are predom-
inant elsewhere. The central theological vocabulary of biblical Hebrew mainly consists of
lexical components of Amorite origin. 564 Apart from the one-word names Saul, David and
Solomon, in the Israelite royal lines, both Amorite sentence-names – Rehoboam, Jeroboam –
and one-word names such as Asa, Omri, do occur.565
Van der Toorn566 mentions that the Amorite theophoric anthroponyms 567 incorporating the
element Yahwi- or yawi- are the 'only North-West Semitic evidence that can be plausibly
linked to the name Yahweh'. However, names such as Ya(h)wi-ila – meaning "God is pre-
sent" – 'do not, …, attest to a cult of Yahweh among certain Amorites; they merely elucidate
the etymology of his name'. Nonetheless, scholars have indicated that Ya-related names do
appear outside the Israelite precincts. The element Ya-u occurs in some Amorite proper
names of the First Babylonian and Kassite Periods. 568 The annals of Tiglath-pileser III569 of
Assyria refer to a certain Azriyau of Jaudi, who seemingly was a North-Syrian prince. 570
Egyptian records of the New Kingdom571 bear witness to a toponym Ya-h-wa in a Bedouin
area of Syria.572 During the eighteenth to sixteenth centuries BC some Amorite anthropo-
nyms from Mari – Yahwi-ki-Addu and Yahwi-ki-An573 – may be read as having a Yahwistic
theophoric element.574 Excavations at biblical Dan yielded an amphora handle with the name
ImmadiYo – meaning "God is with me" – stamped on it. The theophoric ending Yo corre-
sponds with Yahu in Judah – an ostracon discovered in the Negev has the name Immadi-Yahu
inscribed on it. Epigraphic and pottery analyses date the amphora handle to the time of Jero-
boam II.575
564
Examples are , yt‛, , ’mn (Mendenhall 2004:14).
565
Mendenhall 2004:14-16.
566
567
Anthropo-: combining form (in nouns, adjectives and adverbs) connected with humans (Wehmeier 2005:53),
hence anthroponyms: human (personal) names.
568
Walker 1958:262. An Amorite, Sumu-abum, established a dynasty at Babylon in 1894 BC. Prior to the fall
of Babylon to the Hittites, the Kassites had appeared as foreign invaders in western Babylon and had incorpo-
rated all of Babylonia into a single unified Kassite Dynasty by 1475 BC (Arnold 1994:47, 51-52).
569
Tiglath-pileser III is dated 745-727 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
570
Mowinckel 1961:125.
571
The New Kingdom is dated 1570-1070 BC (Clayton 1994:5).
572
Zevit 2001:687.
573
According to Zevit (2001:687) these anthroponyms may be read as "Yahweh is like Addu" and "Yahweh is
like El". Addu is also known as the storm god Adad, and An, the Sumerian god of heaven, was the equivalent of
El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon (Van Reeth 1994:8-9, 19-20, 71).
574
Zevit 2001:687.
575
Biran 1994a:199, 201. The reign of Jeroboam II in the Northern Kingdom is dated 782-753 BC (Kitchen &
Mitchell 1982:197).
281
4.3.12 Yahweh from Hamath
When the inhabitants of Hamath576 defected to a king named Azri-Yau, the Assyrian king
Tiglath-pileser III gained control in 738 BC over nineteen districts of this powerful kingdom.
This particular incident was recorded in various Assyrian chronicles. One of the tablets de-
scribing the event was broken, but restored to read 'Izri-Yau the Judean'. Scholars suggest
that Izri-Yau could be a phonetic variant of Azri-Yau,577 who is identified as the biblical Aza-
riah,578 a form of the name of king Uzziah579 of Judah. The word for Judean on the tablet is
distinct. However, it seems unlikely that the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and not the North-
ern Kingdom of Israel, would have been allied with the North-Syrian Hamath.580 Dalley581
argues that, according to the chronology of the Judean kings, Uzziah had died by 740 BC,
therefore Uzziah/Azariah could not be the Azri-Yau – or Izri-Yau – mentioned in the 738 BC
Assyrian campaign. She furthermore indicates that research done by Nadav Na'aman resulted
in fragments being rearranged and joined, reading "of my frontier and Judah", instead of "Izri-
Yau the Judean". Dalley582 thus concludes that a ruler Azri-Yau – with a Yahweh-bearing
name – was allied with Hamath and had no association with either Israel or Judah. He proba-
bly ruled Hatarikka, a small state between Aleppo and Hamath. It seems, therefore, that in
738 BC a ruler in North Syria had a name compounded with the name Yahweh.
During ca 722 BC Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Mutiny in the heart of Assyria motivated
Samaria to join an anti-Assyrian coalition – probably around 720/719 BC – led byYau-bi’di,
king of Hamath. Dalley583 indicates that this example reinforces the suggestion that Yahweh
576
Hamath, a city on the bank of the Orontes River in North Syria, was on one of the main trade routes to the
South. The city was initially controlled by Solomon (2 Chr 8:3), later conquered by Jeroboam II (2 Ki 14:28)
and thereafter by the Assyrians, who settled some of Hamath's inhabitants in Samaria where they worshipped
their deity Ashima (2 Ki 17:24,30). Excavations yielded inscriptions in Hittite hieroglyphs, Aramaic and cunei-
form. During Greek and Roman times the city was known as Epiphaneia (Millard 1982:450-451). Ashima was a
deity of uncertain identity, worshipped by the people of Hamath. The common interpretation is that the word is
an Aramaic form, meaning "the Name". A possible reference to Ashima in the Hebrew Bible is found in Amos
8:14: "’ašmat šomrôn … ." The general translation is "shame [guilt] of Samaria", but "Ashima of Samaria" is the
more likely expression (Fulco 1992:487). According to Ann and Imel (1993:320-321) Ashima was introduced
into Samaria, possibly by the people of Hamath who brought her images with them. Her name was applied dur-
ing oath taking. She may be associated with Ashima Baetyl [Bethel], who was a mother goddess worshipped by
the Aramaic-speaking Jews at Elephantine (see § 4.3.13). She was regarded as a consort of YHW.
577
See also reference to Azri-Yau in § 4.3.11.
578
According to 2 Kings 15:1 Azariah began his reign in Judah during the reign of Jeroboam II in the Northern
Kingdom. Kitchen and Mitchell (1982:197) indicate that Azariah reigned 767-740/39 BC. After his death he
was succeeded by his son Jotham (2 Ki 15:5-7).
579
Compare 2 Kings 15:1-3 and 2 Chronicles 26:1-4. Uzziah – which means "Yahweh is my strength" – is an
alternative form for Azariah – "Yahweh has helped". The two Hebrew words "strength" and "help" were appar-
ently interchangeable and became almost synonymous (Baker & Millard 1982:1232).
580
Dalley 1990:23.
581
Dalley 1990:23-24.
582
Dalley 1990:24, 26.
583
Dalley 1990:26-27.
282
was worshipped in North Syria during the mid to late eighth century BC. Halpern 584 affirms
that there certainly was a king with the Yahwistic name Iaubi’di in Hamath during the eighth
century BC. A third example – not from cuneiform sources – is recorded in the Hebrew Bi-
ble. 585 King Tou – or Toi586 – of Hamath, sent his son Hadoram – or Joram587 – to congratu-
late king David, who had defeated the whole army of Hadadezer of Zobah. 588 Dalley589 men-
tions that, unless Hadoram changed his name to Joram as a mark of respect when he went to
Jerusalem, his name could be an indication that the people of Hamath adopted Yahweh-
worship when they came under influence of the Israelites – 'or we may suppose that the wor-
ship of Yahweh was already indigenous in Hamath'.
It is unlikely that Azri-Yau and Yau-bi’di were two Israelite residents who became rulers in
two different Syrian states, neither taking on a new name of the adopted nation's divine pat-
ronage.590 Dalley591 suggests that it is more probable 'that Azri-Yau and Yau-bi’di were in-
digenous rulers of two north Syrian states where Yahweh was worshipped as a major god'.
There is the possibility that Yahweh was introduced in Hamath by Hebrews moving north-
wards from Sinai. Alternatively, it may have happened with the expansion of Israel under
Jeroboam II during the eighth century BC. Most scholars, however, generally accept that the
border of Israel did not extend as far as Hamath. According to 2 Kings 14:25, Jeroboam II –
king of Israel – 'restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the
Arabah'. 592 This statement suggests that the domain of the Northern Kingdom reached into
the territory of Hamath, but only as far as the town Labu on its southern border.593 Therefore,
584
Halpern 2001:190.
585
1 Chronicles 18:9-10; 2 Samuel 8:9-10.
586
Toi or Tou, king of the Syrian city-state Hamath, was a contemporary of the Israelite king David. The politi-
cal significance of Toi's gift to David is not quite clear from the text in the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars inter-
pret it that Hamath became a vassal state of David, whereas other scholars suggest that Israel and Hamath be-
came allies. Toi, or Tou, is a well-attested Hurrian name, while his son's name, given as Hadoram (1 Chr 18:10)
and as Joram (2 Sm 8:10), is Semitic; this is an indication of the complex cultural situation in Hamath during
that period (Pitard 1992a:595). The reign of David is dated 1011/10-971/70 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
587
Joram – an abbreviated form of Jehoram – is the Israelite form of Hadoram. Joram could be a diplomatic
name, reflecting Israel's influence in Hamath. Therefore, 'both names can be considered authentic references to
the son of Tou' (Fretz 1992:17).
588
Zobah, also known as Aram-Zobah, was a powerful Aramaean kingdom of southern Syria during the eleventh
century BC. Three accounts of conflicts between Zobah and Israel are found in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sm 14:47;
2 Sm 8:3-8; 10:1-19). According to the accounts in 2 Samuel, it seems that Zobah was a dominant state in Syria
during the latter part of the eleventh century BC, controlling most of the minor states surrounding it (Pitard
1992b:1108).
589
Dalley 1990:27.
590
It was the custom in the Ancient Near East that a god's name was an element in a king's name. Either the
name of the national patron deity was used as divine element, or that of another major deity whose worship was
important in that country (Dalley 1990:28).
591
Dalley 1990:29.
592
Halpern 2001:186. Scholars recognise a relationship between 2 Kings 14:25 and Amos 6:14.
593
Halpern 2001:191.
283
when records found outside Israelite territory mention a person whose name is compounded
with Yahweh, it should not be assumed that this person came from Israel or Judah, but rather
from a Syrian city 'where people worshipped Yahweh as a major god in the 8th century BC'.594
Eerdmans595 is also of the opinion that these kings of Hamath adopted Yahwistic names.
Freedman and O'Connor596 denote that, apart from the name of ia-ú-bi’-di – of which the
meaning of the name is unclear – other names from East Semitic sources may also contain the
Tetragrammaton.
Van der Toorn597 believes that Dalley's claims that Yahweh was worshipped as "major god" in
Northern Syria cannot be substantiated. He mentions that 'Yahweh was not worshipped in the
West-Semitic world – despite affirmations to the contrary.' The three Yahwistic names from
Syria – Azri-Yau, Yau-bi’di and Joram – comprise a remarkably small "body of evidence"
that cannot be sustained. Yahwistic names are, furthermore, seldom found outside Israel.598
Ashima was a North Syrian deity and thus the god of the people of Hamath. 599 Van der
Toorn600 concludes that the 'absence of the name 'Yahweh' in West-Semitic epigraphy (ex-
cepting the Mesha Stela) agrees well with the biblical evidence on Yahweh's origins'.
4.3.13 Anat-yahu and the Elephantine papyri

Important papyri texts and documents, in no less than seven languages and scripts, were dis-
covered on the island of Elephantine, situated in the Nile River, 601 opposite the ancient village
of Syene. 602 These papyri describe, inter alia, the lives of a group of Jewish mercenaries and
their families, who lived there during the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Although their date of
arrival at Elephantine is unknown, they were well established by 525 BC. 603 Excavations at
Elephantine revealed a Jewish temple 604 from Persian times where sacrifices were offered to
YHW.605 This temple was destroyed in 410 BC by the priests of Khnum606 on Elephantine,
594
Dalley 1990:32.
595
Eerdmans 1948:25.
596
Freedman & O'Connor 1986:508-509.
597
598
Van der Toorn 1992:86, 88-89.
599
Van der Toorn 1992:86. See 2 Kings 17:29-30.
600
601
For a description of Elephantine, see § 2.14.5. For a discussion of the papyri collections and its contents, see
Porten (1996:1-27), as well as § 2.14.5.
602
See description and footnote on Syene in § 2.14.5.
603
See footnote on a papyrus, dated 407 BC, in § 2.14.5.
604
See § 2.14.5 for a description of the temple.
605
Instructions for the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is set out in the Passover Papyrus, dated 419
BC (Rosenberg 2004:6).
606
Khnum was the ram-headed Egyptian god, who controlled the annual rising of the Nile (Willis 1993:39). See
also a description of Khnum in a footnote in § 2.14.5.
284
who solicited the aid of Egyptian troops.607 Despite a petition to the governor of Judah for
assistance for the rebuilding of the temple, there was no support from Jerusalem. The Persian
governor of Judah, however, granted permission for the reconstruction on certain condi-
tions. 608
These Jewish mercenaries probably originated from the former Northern Kingdom of Israel,
which came – together with Judah – under the rule of Egypt after the death of Josiah. 609 Jew-
ish soldiers were now fighting under Egyptian instruction and could also possibly have been
taken to serve in Egypt. Stationed on Elephantine, they erected a shrine, probably on the lines
of the Solomonic Temple.610 These Jews were excluded from participation in any activities in
Judah, which, in all likelihood, caused tension between them and the Jerusalem Jews. 611 The
inhabitants of the seventh century BC former Northern Israel consisted mainly of Israelites
and Aramaeans who shared Aramaic as their common language. They worshipped a multi-
tude of deities. This religious pluralism was presumably carried over to Elephantine,612 where
the fifth century BC Jewish inhabitants were in many ways 'a syncretistic, non-traditional
community'. 613
The Aramaic papyri, from both Elephantine and Syene, were compiled over a period of no
more than a century. This was during the years of Persian domination614 with Aramaic as lin-
gua franca of the Empire. The documents were written by skilled scribes for Jews and Ara-
maeans, as well as for settlers sharing the Aramaic language. These documents consist of let-
ters and contracts.615 Several of the legal documents and letters have references to, inter alia,
'YHW the God dwelling (in) Elephantine the fortress' and 'the Temple of YHW'.616 Added
607
See § 2.14.5 for a discussion of this incident.
608
See § 2.14.5.
609
Josiah, king of Judah, died in 609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197); 2 Kings 23:28-30.
610
Rosenberg 2004:12.
611
Ben Zvi 1995:141.
612
Van der Toorn 1992:95. The deportees to Northern Israel came mainly from the northern regions of Babylon
and North Syria ( 2 Ki 17:24) (Van der Toorn 1992:92). Their religious pluralism is evident, as described in 2
Kings 17:24-41.
613
614
539-331 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:198).
615
Porten 1996:74.
616
Porten 1996:80. See also the following references to YHW in the relevant Aramaic documents:
'the temple of YHW in Elephantine’ (Porten 1996:107, 147).
'YHW the God' (Porten 1996:108, 137).
'priests of YHW the God' (Porten 1996:130).
'the Temple of YHW the God which is in Elephantine the fortress' (Porten 1996:140).
'praying to YHW the Lord/God of Heaven' (Porten 1996:142).
'on the altar of YHW the God' (Porten 1996:143, 147).
'YHW the God of Heaven' (Porten 1996:144).
'the Temple of YHW the God which is in Elephantine' (Porten 1996:146).
285
to these, the significance of a recorded oath in the name of Anat-Yahu – 'by the place of pros-
tration and by AnatYHW'617 – in the Elephantine papyri has influenced scholars' interpreta-
tion of the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom inscriptions. 618 These epigraphic discover-
ies, which refer to "Yahweh and his Asherah," have shaped current views on the history of
Israelite religion significantly. 619 Much has been written and discussed in recent years regard-
ing the possibility that Asherah620 was worshipped as female consort of Yahweh. 621 A large
number of scholars support this theory, while other scholars disagree that any allusion to
Asherah in the Israelite context is a reference to the Canaanite deity herself, but rather to a
cult object symbolising her, and therefore, these scholars do not support the view that Yahweh
had a female consort. Despite attempts by some scholars to interpret Anat in the "oath text"
as a noun instead of a proper name, Van der Toorn 622 accepts that 'the evidence is unequivo-
cal: the Jews of Elephantine knew a goddess Anat consort of Yahu'. He is therefore of the
opinion that, in the light of the finds at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom, there are con-
clusive arguments to reconsider the origin and function of Anat-Yahu. Contrary to Van der
Toorn, Maier623 comprehends Anat – in the "oath text" context – as a noun meaning "provi-
dence", "sign" or "time". Therefore, Anat-Yahu should be read "providence/sign of Yahweh".
Anat is thus a hypostasised624 aspect or quality of Yahweh.
Although Anat625 was known as goddess in Egypt, there is no evidence for her veneration in
Israel, and apart from personal names, she is not depicted in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, lack of
'Temple of YHW the God' (Porten 1996:146, 151, 196, 217).

'the priests of YHW' (Porten 1996:147).
'swore to me by YHW the God in Elephantine' (Porten 1996:159).
'you swore to me by YHW' (Porten 1996:160).
'servitor to YHW in Elephantine' (Porten 1996:205).
'servitor to (of) YHW the God' (Porten 1996:212, 216, 223, 237, 241, 242, 245, 248, 251).
'Temple of YHW' (Porten 1996:213, 249).
'servitor of YHW' (Porten 1996:246).
'servitor of YHW the God dwelling (in) Elephantine the fortress' (Porten 1996:246).
617
The following Aramaic "Oath Text" was discovered on an Elephantine papyrus : due to the lack of conclusive
documents or witnesses regarding the transaction for a donkey, the court ordered a certain Menahem to swear in
respect of the deal. The oath was written on a piece of papyrus scrap. The particulars of 'the oath (by the deity
Herem?, in/by the place of prostration, and by AnathYHW) are quite unique and raise questions of religious sym-
biosis and swearing by a non-Jewish deity' (Porten 1996:266). For a detailed discussion of this Aramaic text, see
Porten (1996:266-267).
618
See § 4.3.9 and § 4.3.10.
619
620
See § 3.2 on Asherah.
621
See the discussions on the veneration of female figurines in § 2.13, subtitle "Female figurines", the portrayal
of Asherah – and the possible intimation of Yahweh – on the Taanach cult stand (in the same paragraph), as well
as that on the occurrence of Asherah in the Masoretic Text, in § 3.2.2.
622
623
Maier 1992a:226.
624
625
For a discussion of Anat/Anath, see § 3.3.
286
biblical evidence for Anat intimates the absence of a cult devoted to her.626 Prior to the trans-
lation of the Ugaritic texts 627 little was known about a Semitic goddess Anat in Syria-
Palestine. These texts were the first to give a description of the deity. Although she was ini-
tially considered to be a fertility goddess, it is now evident that she was a war goddess, 628 'de-
picted in the Ugaritic mythological texts as a volatile, independent, adolescent warrior and
hunter'.629 In the well-known Ugaritic "bloodbath" text,630 her bloodthirsty nature is explicitly
exhibited. There are striking points of comparability between this text and Psalm 23. 631 The
etymology of her name has been extensively debated, with no conclusive results. Evidence at
hand indicates her North-West Semitic origin. 632 She evidently developed amongst the
North-Syrian Aramaeans and was introduced into Egypt during the mid-second millennium
BC by the Hyksos633 – Semitic-speaking people from the Levant who infiltrated Egypt and
eventually took over.634 At Avaris635 she was honoured as the consort of a deity Sutekh.636
After the expulsion of the Hyksos, her cult continued to flourish in Egypt. 637 During the
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties 638 she appeared in the Egyptian sources as a significant
goddess of war who was incorporated into the Egyptian mythology. 639 It seems that Ramess-
es II640 had a special preference for Anat. Statues depicting the pharaoh with the goddess
have been found, as well as inscriptions wherein she is being petitioned. Egyptian representa-
tions of Anat portray her clothed, wearing a crown, either sitting of standing, armed or
626
Smith 1990:61.
627
See § 2.8, Ras Shamra tablets: Ugarit.
628
Handy 1994:102-105.
629
Day 1999:37.
630
According to a passage in the Ba‛al myth texts, Anat was up to her knees in blood when she wreaked havoc
on her enemies (Day 2000:141).
631
For an explanation of the points of contact between the "bloodbath text" (KTU 1.3ii:3-30) and Psalm 23, see
footnote in § 3.3.
632
Day 1999:36.
633
The Hyksos Period refers to a time of political turmoil in Egypt. The Hyksos ruled in Egypt ca 1650-1570
BC (Hoffmeier 1994:270). See also § 3.3.
634
Hoffmeier 1994:270.
635
The Hyksos – meaning "rulers of the foreign lands" – ruled Egypt from the city of Avaris. The site of this
city has not yet been found, but it probably lay near Qatana in the eastern delta (Oliphant 1992:50).
636
Sutekh, also known as Set, Seth, was the evil brother of the Egyptian god Osiris. He finally became the incar-
nation of the spirit of evil, and was in eternal opposition to the spirit of good. He was rough and wild – an abom-
ination to the Egyptians. He was the personification of the arid desert, in opposition to the fertile earth. Under
the domination of the Hyksos, Set was identified with their own warrior god Sutekh. They had a temple built for
him in their capital Avaris. Set was depicted as a beast with a thin, curved snout, straight square-cut ears and a
stiff forked tail (Guirand 1996:19-20).
637
Guirand 1996:76.
638
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties: 1570-1185 BC (Clayton 1994:98).
639
Day 1986:388-389. Violent quarrels between the Egyptian gods Horus – the sky god who took on the form
of a falcon – and Seth – see footnote in this paragraph – were occasionally central elements in Egyptian myths.
In a letter to the divine council during such a quarrel, Neith – goddess of war and hunting – proposed that two
foreign goddesses, Anat and Astarte, be given to Seth as compensation for his renouncing of the throne to Horus
(Willis 1993:44, 51).
640
Ramesses II reigned during the Nineteenth Dynasty (1279-1212 BC) (Clayton 1994:146).
287
unarmed. She was closely associated with Ashtoreth.641 An inscription on a relief from
Thebes – in Egypt – refers to qdš-‛strt-‛nt indicating a fusion with the goddesses
qudšu/athirat [ashtoreth]642 and astarte. 643
Maier644 mentions that inscriptions referring to Anat come primarily from Cyprus. One of
these inscriptions – from Lapethos, dated the fourth century BC – is a Phoenician-Greek bi-
lingual. In the Phoenician section Anat is identified with Athena, 645 who is mentioned in the
Greek section. Anat is called "the refuge of the living". Evidence from Palmyra indicates that
the memory of Anat probably continued until the third century AD. She was also, presuma-
646
bly, one of the goddesses incorporated in the composite deity Atargatis – the Syrian deity
who was eventually venerated throughout the Mediterranean world.
Anat-Yahu is not mentioned otherwise than in the Elephantine papyri. Therefore, in the light
of the virtual absence of the worship of Anat in Palestine and Phoenicia, 'it is unlikely that the
association of Anat with Yahweh (Yahu) has ancient roots in Israel'. 647 On the surface it thus
seems that Anat-Yahu was created by the Egyptian Jews living in a syncretistic environment.
It is, however, improbable that a Jewish minority group – who otherwise preserved their tradi-
tional religious culture – would invent a new deity. The goddess, on the other hand, has a
parallel in Anat-Bethel,648 which is mentioned twice in Neo-Assyrian treaties649 that precede
the Elephantine documents by more than two centuries. The origins of Anat-Bethel – who
was introduced into Egypt by West Semitic immigrants – may, therefore, shed some light on
the roots of Anat-Yahu.650
641
Maier 1992a:226.
642
Qudšu was an Egyptian fertility deity, at times seen in the form of the Egyptian Hathor (Willis 1993:51). See
Hathor, incorporated in a footnote in § 2.13 – subtitle "Taanach" – as well as in a footnote in § 2.14.1.
643
Day 1986:389.
644
Maier 1992a:226.
645
646
Atargatis, the Syrian goddess, was worshipped in Hellenistic and later times. Her main cult centre was in the
Syrian city Hierapolis-Bambyke, north-east of Aleppo. She was widely known as Dea Syria. Her name is of
Aramaic origin, with elements of the names of Astarte (see § 3.4) and Anat. Greek inscriptions from Hierapolis
indicate that she was the consort of the West Semitic deity Hadad (see § 3.5). She was depicted as a mermaid,
surrounded by dolphins (Carroll 1992:509).
647
648
The name Anat-Bethel, or Anat of Bethel, signifies "Anat, the consort of Bethel". The name Bethel – "House
of El" – originally may have referred to open cult places (Röllig 1999:174).
649
Esarhaddon's Treaty – the treaty between the Assyrian king Esarhaddon and Baal I, the king of Tyre – men-
tions dBa-a-ati-dingir.meš and dA-na-ti-Ba-a[a-ti-dingi]r.meš, probably pronounced Bayt-’el and Anat-Bayt-’el.
This treaty was probably concluded after the conquest and destruction of Sidon in 676 BC. The same names
appear in the list of divine witnesses invoked in the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon in 672 BC (Van der Toorn
1992:83). The text of the treaty between Esarhaddon and Baal I can be found in Borger, R, Die Inschriften As-
arhaddons Königs von Assyrian, AfO Beiheft 9, 1956, 109 § 69 iv 6, and that of the Succession Treaty as text no
6 in Parpola, S & Watanabe, K, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 1988 (Van der Toorn 1992:99).
650
288
Although Bethel is mentioned in the list of oath-gods in the Neo-Assyrian treaties, it does not
necessarily mean that this deity was of Mesopotamian origin. Several Aramaic personal
names of the Neo-Babylonian651 and Achaemenid periods652 are composed with the name of
Bethel,653 which could indicate that the god was venerated by the Aramaeans who were in
contact with the Jewish community at Elephantine. A lengthy prayer – partly preserved on
Papyrus Amherst – by an Aramaic community in Egypt, invoked the god Bethel as their sav-
iour.654 Besides Yahweh, Bethel was also worshipped by the Elephantine Jews as Ešem-
Bethel655 and Anat-Bethel. These three deities probably formed a kind of triad with Anat-
Bethel as the mother and Ešem-Bethel the son. In a judicial declaration -Bethel is men-
tioned possibly as another hypostasis of this Aramaic god. 656 The cult of Bethel and Anat-
Bethel – as Aramaean deities – was probably confined to North Syria. Their presence in
Egypt would imply that they were brought there by North Syrian Aramaeans. 657 Although
scholars dispute the likelihood that Bethel was worshipped by the Israelites in their homeland,
Jeremiah 48:13 mentions, 'then Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel
was ashamed of Bethel, their confidence'. A comparison with Chemosh, the supreme god of
the Moabites, 'suggests that Bethel played a prominent role in Israel'. 658
The deportees who came to live in seventh century BC Northern Israel maintained their reli-
gious traditions, but also adopted Yahweh – the deity of their new country – into their panthe-
on. 'They feared the Lord [Yahweh] but also served their own gods, after the manner of the
nations from among whom they had been carried away.' 659 It is therefore possible that Bethel
was introduced into Israel at this time of "religious cross-fertilisation", with the result that
Yahweh was subsequently identified with other major deities, such as Bethel. Anat-Yahu
could thus have been created on the model of Anat-Bethel by the Aramaean deportees who
had adopted Yahu [Yahweh] into their cult. Many elements of the diversified population of
651
Neo-Babylonians: during the ninth century BC, the Chaldeans of southern Babylon were mentioned for the
first time in cuneiform sources. By the middle of the eighth century BC they became contenders for the Babylo-
nian throne, advancing a transition from Kassite to Chaldean political domination (Arnold 1994:57).
652
Achaemenids: Persian dynasty founded by Cyrus the Great in the sixth century BC. His successors, Darius I
and Xerxes I, created the great Persian Empire (Oxford University Press 1964c:1380).
653
An example is: É.DINGIRmeš-da-la-’, "Bethel saved me"; compare byt’ldlny (Röllig 1999:174).
654
Röllig 1999:174. Papyrus Amherst 63 xii 11-19, an Aramaic version of Psalm 20, signifies Aramaean influ-
ence on the religion of the Israelites (Van der Toorn 1992:91).
655
The god Ešem – or Ashim – occurs as a theophorous element (see "theophoric name" incorporated in a foot-
note in § 2.3) in Aramaic anthroponyms (see "anthroponomy" incorporated in a footnote in § 3.6) from Egypt.
Ashim could be identical with the god Ashima from Hamath (see "Ashima" incorporated in a footnote in
§ 4.3.12) (Van der Toorn 1992:86).
656
Röllig 1999:174.
657
658
Röllig 1999:175.
659
2 Kings 17:33.
289
the seventh century BC Northern Israel and its religious pluralism recurred at Elephantine in
the fifth century BC. Both Elephantine and Syene were colonised by Jews and Aramaeans
worshipping those gods who were venerated in Northern Israel two centuries earlier. There-
fore, despite referring to Elephantine as a Jewish – Judean or Judahite – colony, the religion
of the inhabitants was Israelite. The concept of Anat-Yahu should thus 'be regarded as an Ar-
amaean creation, elicited by the identification of Yahu with Bethel', 660 with the result that An-
at – the consort of Bethel661 – was accepted as the appropriate consort of Yahu.662
Rose663 denotes that the three-consonant divine name Yhw in the Elephantine texts probably
represents a form older than the biblical Yhwh. Combinations of this name, such as "Anath-
Yahwê" [Yahu], cannot be reconciled with the norm of the faith in Yahweh as proclaimed in
the biblical texts. Day, 664 however, is of the opinion that it is conceivable that in certain reli-
gious circles the concept of a consort for Yahweh – such as Asherah or Anat – was credible.
Asherah was originally the consort of El, as Anat was that of Ba‛al. In ancient Israel Yahweh
was equated with El and Ba’al, and therefore both Asherah and Anat would have been ac-
ceptable as a consort for Yahweh. Van der Toorn665 mentions that 'the concept of Anat-Yahu
is an illustration of the cultural symbiosis which has marked the Israelites and the Aramaeans
living in Egypt'. This goddess should be regarded as an Aramaean creation, her theological
paternity, therefore, being ultimately Aramaean. Sperling 666 suggests that Anat-Yahu was 'an
apparent androgynous667 blend of Yahweh with the ancient Canaanite goddess Anat'. Alt-
hough some scholars find the idea of a consort for Yahweh offensive and attempt to explain it
away, Kenyon668 indicates that, as more evidence appears, arguments in favour thereof tend to
be corroborated.
4.3.14 Résumé, evaluation and conclusion

In accordance with the Kenite hypothesis – see paragraph 5.3 – I theorise that Yahweh was
venerated by the Kenites and Midianites before the time of Moses. I furthermore postulate
that marginal groups – mainly nomad metalworkers – who migrated from the South to
660
Van der Toorn 1992:97
661
Röllig 1999:174.
662
Van der Toorn 1992:88, 93-95, 97-98.
663
Rose 1992:1003.
664
Day 1986:392-393.
665
666
Sperling 1987:5.
667
See "androgynous" incorporated in a footnote in § 3.2.1.
668
Kenyon 1987:124.
290
different regions in the Ancient Near East, and had the opportunity to convey their beliefs,
could have been instrumental in spreading knowledge about a god Ya, or the God Yahweh.
An analysis of the appearance of Ancient Near Eastern divinities indicates that analogous dei-
ties were active in widely-spread pantheons and accepted by various nations. 669 Although
they had different but similar names, they were actually the same deities. Epigraphic finds,
which include references to Ya-related names, have been recovered over a large area of the
Ancient Near East. The Ya-names could thus be evaluated on the premise that, in agreement
to the phenomenon of analogous deities appearing in different pantheons, a deity Ya could
similarly have emanated from various regions in the Ancient Near East. Therefore, this deity
could – or, maybe could not – be related in some way to the Israelite God Yahweh. In the
previous paragraphs a number of epigraphic finds containing the name Yahweh, or a form
thereof, are briefly discussed and hereafter summarised.
The discovery of thousands of texts from the royal archives of third millennium BC Ebla has
significant advantages for both biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies. Some of these texts
have references to Il and Ya. The term Il is applied either as generic term for "god" or for a
divinity Il/El, known particularly from the Ugaritic texts. The term Ya could be a shorter
form of a proper name containing the name of a deity. These texts contain, inter alia, personal
names such as Mi-kà-Il/Mi-ka-Yà, En-na-Il/En-na-Yà, Iš-ra-Il/Iš-ra-Yà, which, according to
Pettinato,670 demonstrate that Ya had the same value as Il, thus referring to a specific divinity.
Pettinato builds his argument on the occurrence that before the reign of Ebrum – seemingly
dated the same time as Sargon of Akkad, who is dated 2334-2279 BC – personal names in-
corporated the theophoric element -Il while, from the time of Ebrum onwards, -Il was re-
placed by -Ya. He deduces that Ya could be a shortened form of Yaw. Scholars generally
dismiss Pettinato's claim. Archi, 671 for instance, indicates that -ya is a common hypocoristic
ending, which usually denotes forms of endearment, while Van der Toorn672 states that a god
Ya is not mentioned in any of the god lists. He is therefore of the opinion that Pettinato's as-
sertion is unsubstantiated. Dahood,673 however, points out that, seemingly, a god Yo was ven-
erated by the early Arabs, Edomites and Canaanites. It is therefore not improbable that a god
Ya was worshipped by the Eblaites, 'since the long a in Eblaite becomes long o in southern
669
See discussions in Chapter 3, particularly § 3.2, § 3.3, § 3.5 and § 3.6.
670
Pettinato 1976:48.
671
Archi 1979:556-560.
672
673
Dahood 1981:607-608.
291
dialects, the equation yā equals yō can readily be granted'. Although Pettinato674 denies that
he identified Eblaite Ya or Yaw with biblical Yahweh, Freedman675 nonetheless mentions that
the Ebla tablets do not hold the origins of Israel.
As at Tell Mardikh-Ebla, Tell Hariri – the ancient Syrian city Mari – yielded thousands of cu-
neiform tablets from the royal archives. Descriptions in some of these texts are important for
the understanding of the Patriarchal Period. The tribe of the Benjaminites, as well as the
habiru is also mentioned; the latter apparently being an ethnic group operating as propertyless
and rootless semi-nomads, disrupting and destabilising social order, particularly in Canaanite
regions. Some scholars identify the Hebrews as a branch of the habiru. The name El Shad-
day, God Almighty, which appears in the Hebrew Bible in connection with the patriarchs,
may be found amongst proper names at Mari – such as Ša-du-um-la-bi. The Tetragrammaton
was probably unknown at Mari, unless it could be identified with names such as Ia-wi-el, or
Ya-hwu-malik. Some names of rulers or officials incorporate the element -ya. MacLaurin676
is of the opinion that a name Yau was known at Mari. Despite these names incorporating the-
ophoric elements, there is no direct indication that they are related to Yahweh.
677
A thirteenth century BC Egyptian text, as well as Amenhotep III's Topographical List,
mentions 'Yhw [Yahu] in the land of the shasu'.678 Additional thirteenth and twelfth centuries
BC Egyptian data679 identify the nomadic Shasu with the tribes of Edom and with the land of
Seir. Although the Egyptian evidence nowhere connects Edom and Seir directly, it does men-
tion that both regions were peopled by Shasu. The Hebrew Bible, however, frequently links
the two regions. As the habiru, the Shasu were unruly, troublesome people unsettling the
peaceful mountain regions of Canaan. They were widespread, but particularly identified as
coming forth from Edom in southern Transjordan. Some scholars associate the Proto-
Israelites with the Shasu and habiru. The later Israelite community, therefore, probably in-
cluded some of these Bedouins. A number of scholars disagree that "Seir" in the Egyptian
texts refers to the territory in Edom, indicating that "Seir" in the relevant texts was written
with a duplicated -r, while it is written with one -r in other Egyptian texts. These scholars
point out that identifiable place names, which appear with the Seir in question, all belong to
674
Pettinato 1980:204.
675
Freedman 1980:202.
676
MacLaurin 1962:444.
677
678
Nakai 2003:141.
679
See footnote in § 2.6 regarding the Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi VI, as well as a footnote in the same paragraph
referring to "letters" by Ramesses II and Ramesses III.
292
central Syria. However, the raid on Seir, referred to by Ramesses III, could be linked to
Egyptian mining interests at Timnah, which is near Elath, and was thus in close proximity to
Edom.
Another Egyptian reference that could also be linked to the Shasu, appears in one of the Am-
arna Letters.680 The Egyptian king warns the mayor of Tyre against the Ia-we. It is unlikely
that the pharaoh would be bothered about an unimportant individual. This Ia-we could thus
be either a generic name – like the Shasu-Yhw of the Egyptian texts – or the name of a leader
of a group of formidable enemies. As indicated earlier in this paragraph, it seems that the
Shasu and habiru were connected in some way; the latter were employed as mercenaries. De
Moor681 is tempted to connect this ia-we with the warriors of Yahweh.
Archaic poetic texts in the Hebrew Bible preserve the memory of a topographical link be-
tween Yahweh and the southern regions – mentioning in particular Sinai, Seir, Mount Paran,
Edom and Teman.682 Biblical evidence on the topographical background of Yahweh therefore
supports the Egyptian reference to "the land of the Shasu-Bedouins". It thus seems that the
origin of Yahweh worship should be searched for – as early as the fourteenth century BC –
among the Shasu of Edom in the regions of Mount Seir.
De Moor683 identifies a certain Beya as the "real ruler" of Egypt in the latter part of the Nine-
teenth Dynasty. He suggests that Beya was a Semitic name – possibly Yahwistic – and iden-
tifies this "ruler" with Moses. Hess, 684 however, indicates that the name resembles the Egyp-
tian name Peya, which has a hypocoristic ending piyy. Beya could therefore be a West Semit-
ic hypocoristicon.
A cuneiform alphabetical script was revealed on tablets excavated at Ras Shamra, where the
remains were uncovered of the ancient city Ugarit in northern Syria. These texts – mainly of
mythological character – furnish new information on the religion of Syria and Canaan in the
second millennium BC. The single occurrence of the name Yw – as yw’elt – appears in a
damaged mythological text. Scholars have suggested a reading of, "the name of my son is yw
’Elat, or, Yw, the son of ’Elat, wife of Il". The rest of the text refers to Ym (Yam), deity of the
680
See § 2.5.
681
De Moor 1997:126.
682
See footnote in § 4.3.4 for the particular texts in the Hebrew Bible.
683
De Moor 1997:214-227.
684
Hess 1991:182.
293
sea. According to De Moor,685 the mythological texts indicate that Ilu, Yw/Yammu and Ba‛lu
were all involved in a struggle for control over the kingship of the pantheon. Therefore, con-
trary to the proposal of scholars that yw could be a by-form of ym, De Moor686 suggests that
yw might represent yawê/yahwê and that the possibility cannot be rejected 'that the Ugaritic
god Yw is identical to YHWH', but agrees that it cannot be interpreted without doubt as an
abbreviation for Yahweh. Other scholars, however, indicate that there is no evidence that the
name Yw – which occurs only once in the Ugaritic texts – refers to the Israelite God. The
fragmentary nature of this text does not contribute to the identification thereof. Yet, in both
Hebrew and Ugaritic, theophoric names seem to indicate that YH/YW was an independent di-
vine name. YHW, possibly being an earlier form of the Tetragrammaton, could thus be anoth-
er way of writing the form YW.
Names found in the Israelite area containing the divine element yw/yh/hw are automatically
assessed as being "Yahwist". The question arises whether such names from a non-Israelite
context, should be evaluated as Yahwist. An Akkadian text discovered at Ugarit refers to a
woman called eli-ia-wa. A similar example of a Hittite name was found. Considering these
examples, Binger687 suggests that the argument for 'a divinity bearing the name of Yahweh or
Yaw' in Bronze Age Syria-Palestine is justified. This would, however, result therein that the
name Yahweh loses its significance as an exclusive Israelite name, becoming just another god
of Syria-Palestine.
The ancient site of Alalakh in northern Syria rendered texts with parallel passages in the He-
brew Bible. There are also texts referring to the habiru. In one of the census lists from the
period 1550-1473 BC a personal name ia-we-e appears, which Hess688 initially considered to
be possibly identified with Yahweh. These lists furthermore provide useful information re-
garding social classes and subgroups, as well as Hurrian names and loan words contributing
to the knowledge of the Hurrian language. The name ia-we-e is unusual for Late Bronze Age
names known from Alalakh and elsewhere. However, similar Middle Bronze Age names –
which form part of the Amorite language stratum – do occur in places such as Mari. The lat-
ter names have been grouped together as ia-PI type names, appearing as a verb – as a form of
the hwy root – and first element in a sentence name, followed by the name of a deity or a hy-
pocoristic suffix. The PI-sign has different values of which the reading wi could be useful if
685
De Moor 1997:108, 165-166.
686
De Moor 1997:165-166.
687
Binger 1997:35.
688
Hess 1991:186.
294
ia-wi is connected with the hwy root. Thus, a name ia-wi may be related to the later ia-we-e
from Alalakh, with a vowel shift in the Amorite from ī to ē. The name could also possibly
extend into the break on the tablet, reading ia-we-e or ia-we-e-a, as the result of the linking of
an initial -e of a divine name, or a hypocoristic suffix e-a. According to Hess,689 both ia-wi
and ia-we-e should be identified as early Amorite verbal forms, and not as divine names. He
furthermore indicates that, although one is tempted to do so, these names should not be asso-
ciated with Yahweh.
One of the most well-known Ancient Near Eastern inscriptions is on the Mesha Stele, also
known as the Moabite Stone. This inscription, dated ca 840-820 BC, is written in the name of
Mesha, king of the Moabites. It describes the successful campaign of the Moabites against
the Israelites and has a direct bearing on the contents of 2 Kings 3:14-27 in the Hebrew Bible,
although the outcome of the battle differs in the two reports. There are, however, enough
similarities to assume that both texts refer to the same historical event. The significance of
the inscription on the Mesha Stele lies therein that it explicitly mentions Israel's God Yah-
weh,690 which is the earliest known West Semitic text mentioning Yahweh. In this account, to
all appearances, Yahweh is presented as the official God of the Israelites. On account of the
close relationship between the Moabite and Hebrew languages, the meaning of certain items
of vocabulary is confirmed mutually in the two languages. Since certain points in this exter-
nal information contradict the biblical account, an earlier arrangement in the biblical text –
before the redaction process – could possibly be recovered. This external material, further-
more, describes Israel's religious profile to some degree. The inscription testifies that Yahweh
was an Israelite deity, worshipped at a sanctuary at Nebo in the Transjordanian territory.
A much-debated inscription – bytdwd – has been found on fragments excavated at Tel Dan.
A similar text has been identified on the Mesha Stele. Lemaire 691 proposes that the Mesha
text should be read 'Beth-[Da]vid', designating the kingdom of Judah, thereby supporting the
same reading of the Tel Dan inscription.
Inscriptions and drawings discovered at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud – a site in the north-eastern region of
Sinai – have resulted in many debates concerning the possibility that the Israelites regarded
689
Hess 1991:188.
690
'… . Go, take Nebo from Israel!
… . And from there, I took th[e ves](18)sels of YHWH, and I hauled them before the face of Chemosh' (Smelik
1992:63-65).
691
Lemaire 2004:367-369.
295
Asherah as the consort of Yahweh. This site, close to important crossroads, probably served
as a caravanserai, and maybe also as a wayside shrine for travellers. Meshel 692 suggests that it
was inhabited by a small group of priests, and could also have been frequented by local tribes.
Two pithoi, each with inscriptions, were excavated at the site; the one reading:
of Shomron [Samaria] and his Asherah'
and the other,
' … and be blessed by Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah. …'.
Many scholars agree that these epigraphic finds, supported by evidence from the Taanach cult
stands,693 endorse the theory that, both in Israel and Judah, Asherah was venerated as consort
of Yahweh. These finds furthermore link Yahweh topographically to the Northern Kingdom
of Israel, as well as to the South. Perspectives on the religion of the Israelites have been in-
fluenced significantly by these inscriptions. The wording of the benedictions and the sur-
roundings where they were discovered, point to folk religion. Apart from the inscriptions var-
ious drawings were found depicting, inter alia, a cow and suckling calf, Bes-like figures, a
lyre player, figures seemingly in gestures of prayer, and two ibexes nibbling at a tree. Schol-
ars differ in their interpretation of these drawings, particularly in that of the two Bes-like fig-
ures. The Egyptian dwarf-god Bes was often depicted in an erotic context. Some scholars
suggest that these two figures represent a male bovine deity and his smaller consort in a tradi-
tional man-and-wife manner, thus portraying the divine couple "Yahweh and his Asherah".
The smaller figure signifies the idea of "walking behind" as part of the marital metaphor.
Some scholars, however, are of the opinion that the "Asherah" in these inscriptions denotes a
cult object symbolising the goddess, who, alongside Yahweh, was invoked as a source of
blessing. Nonetheless, it seems that a substantial number of Israelites believed that Yahweh
had a partner or spouse. The popularity of syncretistic Yahwism possibly influenced the
eighth century BC prophet Hosea to appropriate a theology wherein Yahweh had a "wife"
named Israel.
An inscription, dated ca 725 BC, was discovered on a pillar of a burial cave close to Khirbet
’el-Qom. 694 On the engraving are a carved outstretched human hand and a blessing formula,
692
Meshel 1992:108-109.
693
See § 2.13 under the subtitle "Taanach".
694
Identified with biblical Makkedah, approximately ten kilometres south-east of Lachish.
296
which reads
' … . Blessed is Uriyahu by Yahweh.
… he has been saved
By his a/Asherah. … .'
The nature of the blessing suggests that an appeal invoked in the name of Asherah could in-
fluence Yahweh. It therefore appears that the Israelites knew Yahweh whom they called by
name, as well as other deities, such as Asherah, who they seemingly knew as the consort of
Yahweh.
Archaeological finds, such as the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom, seem
to justify the theory that the Israelites regarded Asherah as the consort of Yahweh.
Akkadian and Sumerian texts refer to Bedouin invaders from the north-western Syrian plains
as Amorites. Parallels in personal Amorite names provide an important chronological frame-
work for the name traditions underlying early biblical traditions. As no writing system is
known for Amorite, personal names are the only direct evidence available for this language.
Most of their names are "sentence names" which include verbs as well as other parts of
speech. Van der Toorn695 indicates that Amorite theophoric names which incorporate the el-
ement Yahwi/yawi could be linked to the name Yahweh. He furthermore denotes that names,
such as Ya(h)wi-la, do not attest to a cult of Yahweh but 'merely elucidate the etymology of
his name'. Amorite personal names from Mari – Yahwi-ki-Addu and Yahwi-ki-An – may be
read as having a Yahwistic theophoric element. The annals of Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria
refer to a North-Syrian prince Azri-yau of Jaudi, while Egyptian records mention the toponym
Ya-h-wa in a Bedouin area in Syria.
The Assyrian tablet referring to the defection of the inhabitants of Hamath to the North-Syrian
Azri-Yau, was broken and restored to read 'Izri-Yau the Judean'. Although scholars suggest
that Izri-Yau could be a phonetic variant of Azri-Yau, whom they identify with biblical
Azariah also known as king Uzziah of Judah, Dalley 696 argues that Uzziah could not be the
Azri-Yau mentioned in the Assyrian campaign. She concludes that Azri-Yau – who had a
Yahweh-bearing name – was a North Syrian ruler, probably of a small state Hattarika, be-
tween Aleppo and Hamath. Other examples that reinforce Dalley's 697 suggestion that Yahweh
695
696
Dalley 1990:23-27.
697
Dalley 1990:26-29.
297
was worshipped in North Syria during the mid to late eighth century BC, are an anti-Assyrian
coalition during 720/719 BC led by Yau-bi’di, king of Hamath, as well as an incident
recorded in the Hebrew Bible. In the latter instance, king Tou – or Toi – of Hamath sent his
son Hadoram – or Joram – to praise king David for his victory over the army of Hadadezer.
Azri-Yau and Yau-bi’di would thus have been rulers of two North Syrian states, where –
according to Dalley698 – 'Yahweh was worshipped as a major God'; Yahweh could have been
introduced in Hamath by Hebrews moving northwards from Sinai.
Papyri texts and documents discovered on the island of Elephantine, situated in the Nile river,
describe the lives of a group of Jewish mercenaries and their families who lived there during
the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Excavations revealed a Jewish temple on the island where
sacrifices were offered to YHW. Egyptian priests of the god Khnum destroyed this temple in
410 BC. Despite a petition to the Judean governor, there was no support from Jerusalem for
the restoration of this temple. These mercenaries probably originated from the former king-
dom of Northern Israel, where the inhabitants consisted mainly of Israelites and Aramaeans.
They worshipped a multitude of deities and presumably carried this religious pluralism over
to Elephantine. Several of the discovered papyri letters and legal documents have references
to, inter alia, 'YHW the God', 'the Temple of YHW' or 'the priests of YHW'. Among these doc-
uments an oath in the name of Anat-Yahu has been recorded. This discovery, together with
that of the inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and Khirbet ’el-Qom referring to "Yahweh and his
Asherah", have influenced scholars' views on the Israelite religion significantly. Despite at-
tempts by some scholars to interpret Anat in this "oath text" as a noun instead of a proper
name, it appears that the Jews of Elephantine knew a goddess Anat that they seemingly linked
to Yahu as consort.
Although Anat was known as goddess in Egypt, there is no evidence that she was worshipped
in Israel. The Ugaritic mythological texts portray her as a volatile war goddess. It seems that
she was from North-West Semitic origin, probably introduced into Egypt during the mid-
second millennium BC by the Hyksos, where she was honoured as the consort of a deity
Sutekh – also known as the Egyptian Seth. During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties
Anat appeared in the Egyptian mythology as a significant war goddess. An Egyptian inscrip-
tion indicates a fusion of the goddesses qudšu, ashtoreth and anat.
698
Dalley 1990:29.
298
Anat-Yahu is not mentioned otherwise than in the Elephantine papyri and, therefore, it is un-
likely that the combination Anat and Yahweh (Yahu) had its roots among the Israelites. It is
also improbable that a small number of Jews living in Egypt would invent a new deity. Anat-
Yahu has, however, a parallel in Anat-Bethel which is mentioned twice in Neo-Assyrian trea-
ties that precede the Elephantine documents. Aramaic personal names indicate that Bethel
was venerated by Aramaeans who had contact with the Jews at Elephantine, the latter who
also worshipped Ešem-Bethel and Anat-Bethel besides Yahweh. Bethel was probably intro-
duced into seventh century BC Northern Israel by Aramaean deportees who adopted Yahweh
(Yahu) into their cult. Together with Anat – who was of North-West Semitic origin – these
deportees thus created Anat-Yahu on the model of Anat-Bethel. Therefore it is likely that, alt-
hough Anat was long known in Egypt, the association of Anat with Yahu (Yahweh) was an
Aramaean creation brought to Elephantine.
As Binger699 has been quoted earlier in paragraph 4.3.1, 'extra-biblical material has a number
of common potential errors and problems'. Although it is generally expected that such mate-
rial has not undergone various redactions, it cannot be assumed, for instance, that all scribes
spelled words the same way. Scribal errors and other inconsistencies, therefore, could lead to
misinterpretation or the incorrect reading of a word or text. The fragmentary state of many of
the excavated tablets and other finds also impede the correct reading of texts, with the result
that names, which have been incorrectly identified, are being analysed.
All the finds briefly discussed and summarised in the foregoing paragraphs, incorporate either
the name Yahweh or Ya-related names. The map enclosed at the end of this chapter indicates
where these different finds have been located. Although only a number of relevant finds that
have been discovered are pointed out, it is evident that Ya-names appear over a wide region of
the Ancient Near East. From Egypt in the West to Mari in the East, Kuntillet ‛Ajrud in the
South and Alalakh in the North, some form of Ya-names have been revealed. The widespread
appearance of these names confirms the phenomenon that beliefs, customs and names have
been transmitted from one area to another by migrating groups. In accordance with the
Kenite hypothesis, which maintains that Yahweh-worship originated in the South amongst
marginalised nomadic groups, it is thus plausible that these groups spread their beliefs over a
large area of the Ancient Near East. Therefore it is not unfounded to postulate that some of
the Ya-names that have been discovered signify some form of Ya-religion, thus implying that
699
Binger 1997:26.
299
a god Ya was venerated elsewhere than only in the South by the Kenites and Midianites. This
theory is furthermore supported by the phenomenon of Ancient Near Eastern deities with sim-
ilar names and the same attributes appearing over a widespread area in different pantheons.
Although I theorise that a god Ya – or gods with cognate names – could have been venerated
in different regions of the Ancient Near East (see Map 3 at the end of this chapter) before the
Israelites worshipped Yahweh, it does not necessarily mean that all the Ya-related names sig-
nify a god Ya. It is, however, significant that this name appears as early as the mid to late
third millennium BC in Ebla and until the fifth century BC in Egypt. I am, however, not sug-
gesting that – apart from the Kenites – there were groups who, without doubt, worshipped
Yahweh before and after the emergence of Israel. I am merely – to my mind – posing a legit-
imate question on this matter. Surely, Yahweh does not need to have been confined to only
one population segment in the Ancient Near East.
4.4 Phenomenon of theophoric names

4.4.1 Introduction
A theophoric name – which could be a personal name or a toponym – has, as one of its ele-
ments, a divine name or epithet. Many Semitic names have a combination of two or three el-
ements to form verbal or nominal sentences. 'Theophoric names thus represent declarations
about or expressions of petition to the deity mentioned in the name.' 700 Names in the Ancient
Near East were often selected for their meaning. 701 The importance of the meaning of names
is demonstrated in the manner which biblical characters and narrators comment on their
meaning. 702 Personal names from the biblical period are therefore a valuable source of infor-
mation. These names indicate, inter alia, the attributes associated with a specific deity. The-
ophoric names furthermore denote the importance of particular deities. Theophoric toponyms
were less common than personal names, and were usually cultic or commemorative in na-
ture.703 Each personal name represented a culturally-sanctioned choice made by a parent.704
The extent of theophoric names in ancient Semitic societies demonstrates the importance of
the divine in the lives of these people.705
700
Pike 1992:1018.
701
Pike 1992:1019.
702
Tigay 1987:159. See, for example, 1 Samuel 25:25; Ruth 1:20-21.
703
Pike 1992:1019.
704
Zevit 2001:604.
705
Pike 1992:1019.
300
Many Israelite theophoric personal names – which appear in both the biblical text and extra-
biblical epigraphic sources – are Yahwistic names. However, 'the popularity of Yahwistic
names has no implication for the religious practices of their bearers', 706 and is probably only a
remnant of earlier onomastic 707 customs. A minority of Israelites linked the names of their
children with those of other deities, indicating general knowledge of such deities, their my-
thologies and communicating rituals. 708 However, personal names – even those applied in
polytheistic groups – seldom invoked more than one deity in a name. Therefore, to establish
the number of deities venerated in a particular group, the total onomastic picture of the group,
and not only the names of a few individuals, should be studied. 709 Obviously, these non-
Yahwistic theophoric elements would have offended a zealous Deuteronomist. Israelite Iron
Age I sites favoured Ba‛al theophoric names, suggesting that large extended families, and
even clans as a whole, worshipped Ba‛al, as well as other deities whose names were also
evoked. According to biblical data, a clustering of Ba‛al names – in both toponyms and some
anthroponyms – appear in the South. Available information furthermore indicates that new
Israelite settlements and villages founded were named after different deities revered in these
tribal territories before the end of the United Monarchy. 710
A number of methodological issues are at stake when dealing with onomastics as historical or
religious source material. Theophoric names are not the only relevant matter. When dealing
with the implications hidden in the name-material, the complete material should be assessed
and not only the easily recognisable divine names. It is also important to keep in mind that
while a theophoric name could have been meaningful at the beginning, the relevance thereof
may be forgotten in the course of time. At the same time a name may have been given simply
out of tradition, or because the giver fancied the name. Notably, deities in different cultures
may share the same name but have different attributes, or share the same attributes and have
different names. Onomastic source material, such as seals and inscriptions, was not made for
the general public who were unable to read or write, but for the wealthier who could afford it.
Therefore graffiti may, to some extent, provide a more representative picture. 711
Hebrew seal inscriptions mainly consist of personal names. Apart from the name of its
owwner, the seal may also include the owner's title and name of his superior. These data are
706
Zevit 2001:606-607.
707
708
Zevit 2001:608.
709
Tigay 1987:159-160.
710
Zevit 2001:587, 603-608, 648-649.
711
Binger 1997:28-29.
301
significant for the study of the onomastics as well as the religious and social matters of the
particular group. Hebrew personal names are often sentence names combined with the name
of Yahweh or El, expressing religious feelings. The onomastics of the seals consists of vari-
ous kinds of names. Theophoric Yahwistic names on the seals are predominantly com-
pounded with -yhw, -yw and -yh, and the onomastics comprises more or less names current in
the Hebrew Bible. Theophoric names frequently have their roots in Scripture passages. Seal
inscriptions are the only Hebrew epigraphic source material that mentions contemporary peo-
ple known from the Hebrew Bible. Seals that belonged to women cast light on the social
status and legal rights of Israelite women. 712 The fact that they owned their own seals – al-
though being subordinate to their husbands – indicates that they had the right to sign legal
documents.713
More than twelve hundred names of pre-exilic Israelites are known from Hebrew and foreign
inscriptions referring to Israel. 714 The vast majority of these names are from the South, dating
mainly from the eighth century BC to the Exile. It seems that these individuals were predom-
inantly from the upper class of Israelite and Judahite society. They were probably to a great
extent court officials, tax collectors, owners of estates, royal officials, scribes and the like.
Despite the prevalence of polytheism in Israel, at least half of the personal names in the epi-
graphic corpus carry a Yahwistic theophoric element. Only b‛l appears in some names as a
potential pagan component, although it could be interpreted in a way that does not imply
polytheism; it may have been an epithet of Yahweh, synonymous with "Lord". Statistics pro-
cured from the corpus of inscriptional names – particularly for the period from the divided
monarchy to the late Judah – correspond more or less to those acquired from the Hebrew Bi-
ble. These statistics do not match up to the expectation to find – in the light of biblical accu-
sations of polytheism – a significant number of pagan theophoric names in Israel. There is no
unequivocal explanation for this discrepancy. The possibility does, however, exist that per-
sonal names reflect only a singular facet of the religious life of a society, while the role of the
dominant deity – or deities – is concealed in this particular aspect.715 Tigay716 concludes that
'in every respect the inscriptions suggest an overwhelmingly Yahwistic society in the heart-
land of Israelite settlement, especially in Judah. If we had only the inscriptional evidence,
712
Thirteen seals belonging to women have been discovered. They are designated according to the father or the
husband of the woman in each case. Some of these female names appear in the Hebrew Bible, and some are
Yahwistic names which are rare in feminine onomastics. One of these seals carries the name of Meshullemeth,
which is the name of the mother of king Amon of Judah (2 Ki 21:19) (Avigad 1987:206).
713
Avigad 1987:195-196, 202, 205-206.
714
Tigay 1986:9.
715
Tigay 1987:161-163, 170-171.
716
Tigay 1987:177-178.
302
I doubt that we would ever imagine that there existed a significant amount of polytheistic
practice in Israel during the period in question.'
Yahweh and Asherah names are generally absent in Israelite toponymy. This phenomenon
may be by virtue of a common and widespread convention to avoid these names for geo-
graphic designations. It may also be that these sites were established prior to the spread of
Yahwism in Israel, or even that Yahwism was never particularly widespread in Israel.717
Theophoric personal Israelite names do not bear the name of either Asherah or any other god-
dess. 718
4.4.2 Theophoric Ya-names

In the previous paragraphs, 4.3.2 - 4.3.13, a number of extra-biblical sources are discussed,
concerning the name Yahweh or related forms, some of which appear as theophoric Ya-names.
The designation yhwh never occurs in a name as such; it does, however, appear in different
standardised forms: yěhô-, yô-, -yāhû, -yô, -yâ, whereas -yěhô- and -yô- are seldom found.
The generic ’ēl, "god", appears to a lesser extent.719 A comparison drawn by scholars be-
tween ancient Hebrew theophoric personal names and those in other ancient Semitic lan-
guages signifies a noticeable difference between the two groups.720 This assessment – partic-
ularly regarding ya-names – does not necessarily imply that Yahwism was the predominant
religion of ancient Israel. Archaeology provides sufficient proof of syncretism among the Is-
raelites. These people probably could not afford to admit openly their sympathy for polythe-
ism and, wisely, rather gave their children Yahwistic names, particularly when powerful peo-
ple with pronounced polytheistic sympathies – such as Ahab and Jezebel721 – set the example
to give their children Yahwistic names. 722 Avigad,723 however, is of the opinion that the
'overwhelming popularity of the Yahweh names attests to the worship of one god – Yahweh.
The worship of foreign gods, of which the Israelite people were so often accused by the
prophets, was apparently not so deeply rooted and widespread as to affect their personal
717
Zevit 2001:595, 651.
718
Korpel 2001:147.
719
Pike 1992:1018.
720
Differences are, inter alia, that female theophoric elements, such as "mother", "sister", as well as polytheistic
concepts, normally do not appear in Hebrew personal names 'whereas they are quite common in the surrounding
cultures' (De Moor 1997:11).
721
1 Kings 16:30-33.
722
De Moor 1997:10-12. After his death, Ahab's son Ahaziah reigned in his place (1 Ki 22:40,51). Ahaziah –
hyzxa – means: Yahu has grasped (MacLean 1962a:66).
723
Avigad 1987:196-197.
303
names'. Tigay, 724 on the other hand, mentions that a high percentage of Yahwistic names does
not necessarily imply that there was the same percentage of monotheists or monolatrists. If
Yahweh was one of the gods polytheists venerated, they could very well have given their chil-
dren theophoric Ya-names. He furthermore indicates that personal names expressed different
aspects of their beliefs, such as hope for the god's blessing and protection. These names were
not theoretical theological statements. Therefore, should personal names in a society reflect
the predominance of a single deity – with the exclusion of others – this could merely signify
the expectation of particular beneficial actions from this deity, and not purport that they did
not worship other gods.
De Moor725 mentions that biblical traditions regarding theophoric personal names in the pre-
monarchical period should not all be regarded as reliable. However, although a number of
names may have been invented for social, religious or political reasons, at least some histori-
cal value should be attributed to these early names. He grouped the Israelite theophoric
names according to tribes, to ascertain whether there existed any differences between the var-
ious tribes in the use of Yahwistic, Elohistic and other theophoric names. Theophoric person-
al names appear predominantly among the tribes of Judah (Davidic dynasty), Levi (priests)
and Benjamin (warriors). Particularly by specific name-giving, these families obviously later
would have demanded their rightful place in the history of Israel. Many of these names are
found only in post-exilic Chronicles; understandably, the Chronicler would also have tried to
eliminate a number of polytheistic names. Yet, although there is a significant increase in
Chronistic Yahwistic personal names up to the time of David, this may simply be a reflection
of prevailing onomastics at the time of the Chronicler. Elohistic names appear to have been
more popular for the same period, and are attested for all tribes. Yahwistic names are lacking
in many tribes, and are also low in number for others. De Moor726 concludes that, on account
of the phenomenon of early Yahwistic and Elohistic names, Yahwism probably started as a
popular religion long before the time of David. The data furthermore suggest that both the
names Yahweh and El were from early times designations for the same God.
After doing a similar exercise on toponyms, De Moor727 deduced that, up to the time of David
and later throughout Israel's history 'toponyms with yhwh are virtually unattested'.
724
Tigay 1986:6-7, 17.
725
De Moor 1997:13-14, 29-33.
726
De Moor 1997:33.
727
De Moor 1997:38-39.
304
Most tribal territories contain Elohistic or Baalistic names, as well as those of other deities
known from Canaanite literature. Some Levitical cities which were previous pagan centres
have names derived from pagan deities. Notably, Levitical names in the lists of temple per-
sonnel during the United Monarchy, exhibit a high frequency of Elohistic and Yahwistic
names. Onomastic evidence regarding theophoric toponyms thus points to 'a gradual, non-
violent integration of the Israelites into the Canaanite world'. 728
The origin of the name YHWH, as well as extra-biblical sources pertaining to this name – or
related forms – has been deliberated in the foregoing paragraphs. It is thus logical that theo-
ries regarding the origin of Yahwism be discussed hereafter – as in the following chapter.
On the following page is a map indicating places where references to the name Yahweh, or
related forms, have been discovered.
728
De Moor 1997:39.
305
Map 3. Extra-biblical sources: the name Yahweh or related forms729
729
The map indicates the places where references to the name Yahweh, or related forms, have been discovered
regarding particular extra-biblical finds, as discussed in the previous paragraphs (§ 4.3.2 - § 4.3.13). Names in
italics denote the extra-biblical references.
306
CHAPTER 5
THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF YAHWISM
In the preceding chapter matters relating to the name YHWH have been discussed. In contin-
uation of the previous deliberations, hypotheses on the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism, and
relevant matters, are evaluated hereafter.
5.1 Introduction
Handy1 is of the opinion that anyone who ventures to explain religious traditions where there
is virtually no reliable source material and 'not a single living devotee of the culture to con-
sult', exhibits some audacity. Despite the varied and fragmented data currently available on
the religious life of the Syro-Palestinian people of the second and first millennia BC, scholars
attempt to create a "coherent religious vision". Human2 indicates that a 'complete and uni-
form picture of the Israelite religion' cannot be reconstructed due to a lack of information on
the pre-monarchical and early monarchical periods. He furthermore argues that, although Al-
bright3 identifies Moses as the founder of the Israelite Yahwist religion, he is 'doubtful wheth-
er one could still speak about monotheism in this early Mosaic period of Israelite history'. 4
Van der Toorn,5 on the other hand, mentions that it was Saul 6 who promoted the Israelite God
to the rank of national God.
Although the Hebrews obviously would have been interested in the origin of their worship of
Yahweh, there is no general tradition that can be authenticated. Lewy 7 mentions that the three
different accounts in the Pentateuch about this significant historic event are an indication that
beliefs were at variance.8 The main contributors to the pentateuchal material were the im-
portant Yahwist narrator, the northern prophetic Elohist and the pre-deuteronomistic southern
Priestly Elohist.9 The Yahwist narrator recorded that, as early as at the time of the birth of
1
Handy 1994:3-4.
2
Human 1999:495-496.
3
Human 1999:495. William F Albright's thesis is propounded in From stone age to Christianity: monotheism
and the historic process (1957, 2nd ed, 270 ff. New York: Doubleday).
4
Human 1999:496.
5
6
Saul, as first king of the United Monarchy of Israel, brought about a territorial state, put an administrative
structure in place, as well as a standing military force (Van der Toorn 1993:519). Saul reigned from 1050 BC
(or 1045) to 1011/10 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
7
Lewy 1956:430.
8
Yahwist account: Genesis 4:26; Elohist account: Exodus 3:14-15; Priestly account: Exodus 6:2-3 (Boshoff et al
2000:88, 104, 162).
9
Contributors to the Pentateuch are discussed briefly in § 8.2.
307
Enosh, 'people began to call upon the name of the Lord' [Yahweh].10 The Yahwist thus linked
this important occurrence with an unimportant person. He likewise designates Cain as the
ancestor of Lamech and, by implication of Noah,11 whereas the Priestly narrator calls Seth
their ancestor.12 For the later Chronicler the idea was probably intolerable that Noah and
Abraham were from the lineage of the murderer Cain. 13 The pronouncement that people be-
gan to "call upon the name of Yahweh" with the birth of Seth's son, 14 suggests that Seth is the
physical and spiritual ancestor of Israel, and therefore a true model of a follower of Yahweh.15
Westermann,16 however, denotes that the J-narrator17 does not imply that a definite Yahweh
cult began at the time of Enosh, but refers to worship in a general sense. The narrator thus
distinguishes between the worship of Yahweh and religion; the latter, being part of human-
kind, is rooted in the primeval time. God's history in Israel therefore embraces the whole of
humanity right from its beginnings.
Since the latter part of the nineteenth century many debates evolved around the question
concerning the origin of Yahweh and the Israelite religion of Yahwism. Dijkstra18 mentions
that 'the traditional view on the origin of Israel's religion and belief in YHWH was based on
the picture that the Old Testament itself draws from the religion of ancient Israel'. This view
was accepted by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Contradictory traditions, as in Genesis 4:26
and Exodus 6:3,19 intensify the problem of the origins. The Cain and Abel narrative informs
us that Yahweh was the Entity of their veneration. The prehistory of the primeval – and later
– ancestors tells us that they called upon the name of Yahweh as in a "normal" tradition of
worship. 20 It is conceivable that the J-narrator was familiar with traditions that worship of
Yahweh – possibly by southern tribes – preceded Moses. Until recently, scholars assumed
that these narratives, implying a pre-Israelite veneration of Yahweh, was part of some of the
oldest layers of the Pentateuch, however, this view is no longer taken for granted. J, as a
10
Genesis 4:26b. To Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, a son, Enosh was born.
11
Genesis 4:17-24 (Boshoff et al 2000:88).
12
Genesis 5:6-32 (Boshoff et al 2000:162).
13
Lewy 1956:430.
14
Genesis 4:26.
15
Nolan 1982:22.
16
Westermann 1984:339-340.
17
Yahwist; see § 8.2.
18
Dijkstra 2001a:81.
19
Genesis 4:26 :'To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call
upon the name of the LORD [Yahweh]'.
Exodus 6:3 : 'I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shadday], but by my name the
LORD [Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them.'
20
Genesis 5:29; 9:26; 12:1; 14:22; 15:2; 18:27; 21:33; 24:3; 27:20, 27; 28:16, 21; 29:32-35; 31:49; 32:9; 49:18.
According to Genesis 28:13 Yahweh introduced Himself by this name.
308
literary work, is lately dated by some scholars close to the Deuteronomistic History. 'The
universalism of J is no longer the optimistic worldview of the Solomonic renaissance, but the
new outlook of the Babylonian captives who retold and adapted ancient traditions in the light
of their predicaments, developing a new, Diaspora theology.' 21 Exodus 6:3, 22 on the other
hand, presents a different picture of the origin of Yahweh -veneration, creating the impression
that this name was revealed to Moses for the first time, while, contrary to this perception, the
antediluvian and postdiluvian ancestors were 'seen as recipients and transmitters of YHWH's
original revelation'.23 Thus, the Pentateuch supports a twofold tradition about the disclosure
of Yahweh, and consequently of the origin of Yahwism. 24
Abraham Kuenen published a monumental work on the history of the religion of ancient
Israel, as early as 1882.25 Kuenen26 indicates that the books of the Hebrew Bible are unani-
mous therein that they all acknowledge 'the divine origin of Israel's religion', and, that our 'be-
lief in the exceptional origin of the religion of the Israelites is founded simply and solely on
the testimony of their holy records'. Although these records appear at variance with each oth-
er, they nonetheless clearly declare a natural development of the religion itself and a belief in
its heavenly genesis. Our concept of Israel's religious history, however, depends completely
on our judgement of the Hebrew Bible. Kuenen27 therefore poses the question whether the
accounts of this history – as recorded in the Hebrew Bible – could be 'a foundation for our
own review of its religious development'. He indicates that this is however not possible and
that 'we cannot follow the guidance offered to us by the historical books', as they were written
centuries after the events they record. It is totally unlikely that oral traditions would have re-
mained unbiased and free from external influences after such a long time. An inquiry into
this religious history pertaining to the period earlier than the eighth century BC should there-
fore not be done.
Dijkstra28 agrees with Kuenen that, although belief in Yahweh, in a sense, stands at the
beginning of the religion and the people of Israel, all three – thus also belief in Yahweh – orig-
inated more or less simultaneously on the soil of Canaan. Increased knowledge about
21
Dijkstra 2001a:85.
22
See earlier footnote in this paragraph.
23
Dijkstra 2001a:86.
24
Dijkstra 2001a:82-86, 88.
25
Kuenen, A 1882. The religion of Israel to the fall of the Jewish State. 3 vols. Translated by A H May. (See
Kuenen 1882a and Kuenen 1882b in the bibliography of this thesis).
26
Kuenen 1882a:11.
27
Kuenen 1882a:16.
28
Dijkstra 2001a:92-93, 95-96.
309
Canaanite religions therefore contributes to a better perception of the religion of the early Is-
raelites. Research on the origin of Yahweh and Yahwism should take the occurrence of syn-
cretism into account. Syncretism – the concept which implies the contact and amalgamation
of distinct religions – purports that two independently developed religions of Canaan and Is-
rael came into contact and fused into a new religion in certain regions of Palestine. The cult
of Yahweh from the southern desert regions thus merged with the local Canaanite cults – par-
ticularly those of El, Ba‛al, and even Asherah. Robertson Smith,29 a contemporary of
Kuenen, mentions that certain myths do not merely explain particular traditional practices, but
also attempt to systematise the variety of beliefs and worship, and thereby disclose the origins
of "larger religious speculation". It is also clear that mythology became more important in the
later stages of ancient religions. Therefore, any investigations should be directed firstly to the
religious institutions which controlled the lives of the people. These views of scholars thus
corroborate the inclusion of chapter 3 in this thesis.30
'The Hebrew Bible presents a quite clear schematic outline of the history of Israelite
religion', 31 convincingly defining Israel as the people of Yahweh. It indicates that, although
they have strayed from time to time into the worship of other gods, their relationship with the
one God, Yahweh, is clearly explicated, thus presenting a unique monotheism in a polytheistic
context. This traditional biblical view of Israel's religion can hardly be called historical. The
appropriation of biblical material for the reconstruction of early Israelite history and religion
has become problematic. Extreme viewpoints are prevalent. On the one hand some scholars
downplay the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History as irrelevant literary creations of late
post-exilic periods, probably in reaction to the other perspective that biblical traditions may be
reliably traced back to the earlier events they refer to. Most scholars, however, agree that the
texts in their present form are not mere reconstructions of events, but that the selection, ar-
rangement and presentation of pentateuchal and deuteronomistic narratives were influenced
by conditions and matters that dominated the exilic and post-exilic periods. Despite the bibli-
cal presentation of Israel's religion – but also on account of it – it remains a matter of conten-
tion.32
29
Robertson Smith 1969:18-19, 22. See footnote on this scholar in § 3.1.
30
Chapter 3: concerning mythology and Ancient Near Eastern religions, as well as the syncretistic religious
practices of the Israelites.
31
Mayes 1997:51.
32
Mayes 1997:51-52, 56-57.
310
Lemche33 indicates that there is 'no evidence of a deity called Yahweh in Palestine prior to the
emergence of Israel'. The question is thus where this deity came from and what he was. An-
swers to these questions remain hypothetical, since accounts in the Hebrew Bible are histori-
cally unattainable. Extra-biblical information points to, inter alia, Yahweh's Shasu nomads in
the Sinai Peninsula. 34 Other sources also link Yahweh to this peninsula.35 He furthermore
mentions that these references are insignificant if there are no other traditions in the Hebrew
Bible to establish Yahweh's origin in Sinai. Djebel Musa, in southern Sinai, is the traditional
site of Yahweh's sanctuary. Yahweh revealed himself in Sinai in thunder, smoke, fire and an
earthquake. These external manifestations, however, give no decisive information about the
character of a deity. Yet, it is probable that Yahweh was regarded as the local manifestation
of the storm god in Sinai, and later in Palestine. Lemche36 concludes that it seems 'that Yah-
weh was originally located in the Sinai Peninsula, and that he was "brought" to Palestine
sometime between the end of Late Bronze Age and the emergence of the Israelite monarchy.'
The Hebrew Bible, in its totality, gives a fairly explicit picture of the origin of the Israelite
religion, as well as the manner in which Yahweh, the only God, revealed himself to the patri-
archs and to Moses. It explains that Yahweh made a covenant with his people who pledged
themselves to a monotheistic faith. The development of the Israelite religion – as outlined in
the Hebrew Bible – is not supported by any historical comparisons. Although extra-biblical
epigraphic sources do not confirm the rise and establishment of Yahwism as portrayed in the
Hebrew Bible, it is, nonetheless, the only original evidence relating to the worship of Yah-
weh.37 Any conclusions drawn from this extra-biblical material 'show a divine figure wor-
shipped in the region of Syria and Palestine from the beginning of the second millennium BC
on, both by sedentary people and by nomads'. 38 Garbini39 mentions that, contrary to what tra-
ditional biblical Yahwism proclaims, it seems that 'Yahweh existed before the Hebrew people
existed and was worshipped in the land of Canaan when the Hebrew tribes were still practis-
ing the cult of their fathers'. The entire Hebrew Bible is a testimony of the demythologisation
by some religious Hebrew circles that transferred the work of Yahweh from nature to history.
33
Lemche 1988:252-255.
34
See discussions in § 2.6 and § 4.3.4.
35
The Song of Deborah, regarded as the oldest text in the Hebrew Bible, presents Yahweh as "the one from Si-
nai" (Jdg 5:5). This phrase could be compared with Psalm 68:8, which refers to Yahweh as 'the One of Sinai'.
Many scholars regard this psalmic fragment almost as old as the Song of Deborah (Lemche 1988:253).
36
Lemche 1988:253.
37
See Garbini (1988:55-57), as well as § 4.3 in this thesis, for brief discussions of relevant extra-biblical materi-
al.
38
Garbini 1988:57.
39
Garbini 1988:57.
311
The religion of the Israelites was originally, to a great extent, analogous to that of neighbour-
ing populations. In some prophetic circles a religious reform came forth, based on a moral
cult of one God. The account in the Hebrew Bible about the origins of Yahwism is incon-
sistent with the results of an historical analysis. This version 'gives us … a history of the reli-
gious evolution of Israel from the point of view of the priestly class of Jerusalem in the post-
exilic period: a history with irritatingly nationalist connotations, characterized by an increas-
ingly marked exclusivism'. 40 Garbini41 denotes that it is furthermore incomprehensible what
motivated the redactors of the Hebrew Bible to give an extra-Palestinian origin to a religion
which originated in the land of Canaan.
Since the time of Kuenen, 42 scholars advanced different hypotheses on the origin of Yahweh
and Yahwism. The origin, analysis and interpretation of the designation YHWH is discussed
in paragraph 4.2. From this analysis it emerged that some scholars suggest that the name
Yahweh developed from an older divine name Yāh, and even from the Egyptian I-H, also be-
ing Yah. WH was an added Egyptian epithet. The Egyptian epithet "W" – One – was custom-
arily conferred on a supreme deity. Therefore, either through Semitic or through Egyptian,
the Kenite Yāh thus became "Yah-weh", meaning "Yah-One". Scholars have also advanced
that the Arabic interjection Ya-huwa, meaning "Oh, He", should be explored. Prehistoric an-
cestors of North Sinaitic tribes possibly called their god "He", celebrating during festivals
with the cultic cry "Oh, He" – ya-huwa. These are but two hypotheses on the origin of the
name Yahweh, both proposing a North Sinaitic, thus a possible Kenite root. The Kenite hy-
pothesis – advanced in 1872 – characterises Yahweh as a desert god worshipped by the
Kenites and related groups and that this preceded veneration of Yahweh by the Israelites.
Currently many scholars accept the Kenite hypothesis as a feasible explanation for the origin
of Yahwism. Some other scholars, however, suggest, as an alternative hypothesis, that Yah-
weh was originally a cultic epithet for El – as Yahweh-El – and that the El-figure was later
adopted by Yahweh. These two hypotheses are discussed and evaluated hereafter in para-
graphs 5.3 and 5.6.
5.2 Origin and characteristics of the Kenites

The Kenites were a nomadic or semi-nomadic tribe of coppersmiths who inhabited the rocky
country south of Tel Arad. As early as the thirteenth century BC they made their livelihood
40
Garbini 1988:62.
41
Garbini 1988:52-63.
42
Nineteenth century Dutch scholar Abraham Kuenen; see bibliography in this thesis for A Kuenen 1882, and an
earlier footnote in this paragraph.
312
as metal craftsmen. There may be some resemblance to the modern Arab tribe, the Sleib, who
travel – somewhat gypsy-like – as smiths or tinkers.43
During the latter part of the nineteenth century – in 1894 – Stade identified the Cain narrative
of Genesis 4 as the aetiological legend of the Kenites.44 When Eve 'conceived and bore Cain'
she declared: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD'. 45 The name Cain – !yq – is a
derivation from the word "gotten" or "acquired" – qānîtî, ytynq. The name recurs later in
Numbers 24:21-22 in the oracle of Balaam. In this text Cain – !yq – is associated with the
Kenites – ynyq. The name has its etymology in a root qyn.46 The word means "spear". 47 A
similarly spelt root appears in fifth century BC South Arabian tribal, clan and personal names.
The root, meaning "smith", is also found in later Aramaic and Arabic. 48 In cognate Semitic
languages it means "tinsmith" or "craftsman". 49 In 2 Samuel 21:16 a keino – wnyq – is men-
tioned, which could refer to a spear or metal weapons in general. 50 The name could also be
related to Ugaritic qn, meaning "reed" or "shaft". The name Cain, likewise, might be con-
nected to qayn, a Thamudic51 deity. The legend of Cain and Abel has been interpreted mytho-
logically. In this mythology Cain represents the deified sun. Qayn, a well-attested Thamudic
personal name, also may have represented a deified ancestor. It is uncertain whether there is
any link between Qayn and the South Arabian deity Qaynān, Kenan. 52 In the genealogical
lists of the antediluvian heroes, Kenan – Qênān – is named as the son of Enosh. 53 Etymologi-
cally the name could be derived from Cain, with a diminutive ending -ān. Qênān could be
interpreted as meaning "smith", "javelin" or "little Cain"; Qaynān was probably a patron deity
for smiths and metalworkers. The only information about Kenan found in the Hebrew Bible,
is recorded in Genesis 5:12-14: he fathered Mahalalel, as well as other sons and daughters,
and lived for nine hundred and ten years.54
43
Landes 1962c:6.
44
Nolan 1982:14. Article by B Stade, 1894. Das Kainszeichen. ZAW 14, 250-318.
45
Genesis 4:1.
46
Fry 1992:806.
47
Holladay 1971:318.
48
Fry 1992:806.
49
Allon 1971:906.
50
51
The Thamudic language is a dialect of preclassical North Arabian. It comprises of about a thousand graffiti
and has been found in West and Central North Arabia, particularly in the region of Midian. It dates from the
sixth century BC to the fourth century AD (Huehnergard 1992:159).
52
Becking 1999a:180.
53
Genesis 5:9-14; 1 Chronicles 1:1-2.
54
Becking 1999d:479.
313
Kunin55 indicates that 'two primary kinds of genealogies are found in Genesis: segmentary
genealogies and linear genealogies (or pedigrees)'. Segmentary genealogies trace the lines of
descent from a particular ancestor, and are typical of societies whose social structure is built
on lineages. Genesis 10:8-19 is based on this specific genealogical structure. Linear geneal-
ogies, on the other hand, follow a single line of descent, tracing only significant ancestors.
Genesis 4:17-22 is an example of the linear form of J. 56 Genesis 5:1-28 and 10:1-8 represent
the linear and segmentary forms of P57 respectively. The genealogy in Genesis 10 is a mix-
ture of J and P documents.58 Origins of nations are all described in segmentary genealogies,
with the exception of that found in Genesis 4:17-22, which some scholars consider to be the
tribal genealogy of the Kenites, thereby accepting Cain as the eponymous ancestor of this
tribe. The Kenite genealogy was probably an independent source of their origin which was
later incorporated into this text. To support this theory, scholars quote Numbers 24:21-22
wherein the name Cain is applied parallel to Kenite. There is, however, no evidence that the
Kenites associated themselves with Cain as their primeval ancestor, or that the Israelite narra-
tives relating to Cain, were shared with the Kenites. 59 According to Exodus 3:1 and Judges
1:16, there is a connection between the Midianites and the Kenites; 60 the latter were perhaps
regarded as a clan of the Midianites. 1 Chronicles 2:55 links the Kenites and the Rechabites.
Linear genealogies share a similar form, consisting of lists of seven or ten lineal descendants
which segment into three lines – such as the list identified in Genesis 4:17-22; seven linear
descendants are recorded from Cain to Lamech, concluding with the three sons of Lamech. 61
The two basic genealogical structures are thus linear genealogies, which list one member of
each generation in descent, while the segmented genealogies indicate a family tree that
branches out into clans and lineages. 62
' … the Ancient Israelite manipulated genealogical information to produce a particular view
of the past that conformed to his of her present need'. 63 Genealogical traditions among An-
cient Near Eastern nations were well developed with consistent patterns. Biblical genealogies
are, however, completely different with no established pattern or priority for a particular form.
Therefore the form of the biblical genealogy has to be analysed before any conclusions can be
55
Kunin 1995:182.
56
J: Yahwist narrator of sections in the Pentateuch; see explanation in § 8.2.
57
P: Priestly writer of sections in the Pentateuch; see explanation in § 8.2.
58
Boshoff et al 2000:88.
59
Kunin 1995:182-183.
60
Exodus 3:1 refers to Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, as a priest of Midian, while Judges 1:16 names him a Kenite.
61
Kunin 1995:183-184.
62
Levin 2001:12.
63
Aufrecht 1988:205.
314
drawn regarding the function or historicity of the data. Genealogies were generally applied to
establish rights or the proof of lineage, and also for material gain. When oral traditions were
compiled and written in a systematised way it generally resulted in a compromise. Genealo-
gies were collected over a long period of time and not transmitted in a systematic fashion. 64
According to Levin, 65 two basic terms are applied in the Hebrew Bible to express genealogi-
cal relationships: in the pentateuchal sources the root yld – to give birth – is mostly used,
while the root yhs – relationship – is more prevalent in Chronicles. Most biblical genealogies
represent clans and families, their economic or administrative structure and their geographic
distribution. Characters in genealogies could be identified with toponyms known from histor-
ical sources. Members of a community generally associate themselves with an eponymous
ancestor who was the founder of a town or village. Particular genealogical forms were em-
ployed by the different writers of the biblical books, living in different times, with varied
messages intended for specific readers. The list of descendants of Cain, for example, 'was
obviously meant to bridge the chronological gap between the Cain and Abel narrative and the
Flood story'. 66 Most of the genealogical material in the book of Genesis is recapped in the
first chapter of the Chronicler, presumably intended to convey his version of the history of
ancient Israel, thereby specifying Israel's place among the nations. The Chronicler's concept
of Israel is defined both genetically and geographically. Textual deviations from Genesis
could be ascribed to scribal errors.
Wilson67 mentions that genealogies are records of a person's or a group's descent from an an-
cestor or ancestors. In Ancient Near Eastern literature – other than that of Israel – genealogies
appear only on rare occasions. Attested lists are primarily Mesopotamian King Lists, 68 as
well as second millennium BC texts dealing with the history and political organisation of the
Amorites. Miller 69 denotes that a standard genealogy, which was comparable to the
64
Aufrecht 1988:211-212, 215-216, 218.
65
Levin 2001:15, 21-22, 28, 31-33, 36-37.
66
Levin 2001:33.
67
Wilson 1992:929-930.
68
Mesopotamian King Lists as a whole do not fit the strict definition of a genealogy. However, some of these
lists do contain genealogical fragments that record lines of ancestors. Of these lists the Sumerian King List is a
valuable source (Wilson 1977:72-73). Levin (2001:20) mentions that Wilson – see aforementioned reference –
was the first scholar 'to compile a comprehensive and systematic survey of the genealogical material and to
compare it both to the anthropological data and the biblical lists'.
69
Miller 1974:164,167, 172-173.
315
Hammurapi Genealogy70 and the Assyrian King List,71 probably circulated from an early
stage among Syro-Palestinian tribal groups. These standard genealogies consisted of one-
dimensional lists of ancestors – normally ten generations – which were regarded as the com-
mon ancestry of the different tribes. Both the J and P pentateuchal writers 72 would have been
dependent on such a genealogy. The Cain and Abel narrative, 73 as well as The Song of
Lamech,74 clearly originated independently and were later joined to the genealogy by the
Yahwist. These three units 75 represent different literary genres. The narrative, however, re-
quired that the genealogical list be split into two family lines 76 to serve as a common ancestry
to all mankind.
The Cainite genealogy of the Yahwist is evidently a variant version of the Priestly writer's list.
The generations from Cain to Lamech in Genesis 4:17-18 correspond with those from Kenan
to Lamech in Genesis 5:9-25. The Yahwist's version of the Sethite genealogy 77 was probably
retained by the redactor as it links Seth's name to the commencement of the worship of Yah-
weh.78 A distinguishing characteristic of the J-tradition is the assumption that Yahweh was
worshipped from the earliest times by his personal name. 79 The Sethite genealogy of Genesis
4:25-26 is a single, self-contained tradition. Preserved in a fragmentary state it has notably
been altered. The Sethite line is perceived as moral and religious, in opposition to the Cainite
line which represents good and evil that runs through the whole history of mankind. 80 Ac-
cording to Israelite myth and legend, Seth became the father of all the righteous people. He
never intermarried with the daughters of Cain – as all Cain's descendants were wicked. How-
ever, Seth's children – who were called the "sons of God" – became iniquitous. They took the
"daughters of man" as their wives, and thus, from the seed of Cain, the giants were born.81
70
The genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty is important for the study of Ancient Near Eastern genealogies
therein that it reveals a previously unknown function of royal genealogies; for a discussion thereof, see Wilson
(1977:107-114). Hammurapi: see footnote in § 2.4.
71
Of the three groups of texts in the Assyrian King List, only one contains an extensive amount of genealogical
material (Wilson 1977:86-87).
72
See § 8.2.
73
Genesis 4:1-16.
74
Genesis 4:23-24.
75
The Cain and Abel narrative, the so-called Cainite genealogy (Genesis 4:17-22) and the Song of Lamech.
76
The Cainite and Sethite genealogical family lines.
77
Genesis 5, as well as the brief list in Genesis 4:25-26. Scholars generally agree that these verses are the frag-
mentary remains of a more extensive Sethite genealogy which the Yahwist included alongside the Cainite gene-
alogy (Miller 1974:164).
78
Genesis 4:26.
79
Miller 1974:164-165.
80
Westermann 1984:338.
81
Rappoport & Patai 1966:200. Genesis 6:1-4.
316
Moye82 indicates that all genealogical lists more or less follow the same lines. 83 In the ex-
tended list of 'the generations of Adam', 84 the phrase 'generations of the heavens and the
earth'85 links the human creation to the divine. All antediluvian genealogies thus 'serve the
purpose of narrowing down universal humanity to the single line that will be God's chosen
people'. 86 Therefore, if genealogy could be described as the conveyance of history in its pre-
historical form, then these two different genealogies in the antediluvian history of Genesis
signify the presentation of a particular event, while each genealogy has its own point of depar-
ture within the context of that one specific event. This event pertains to the origin of the an-
cestral father, who becomes an historical causality in the writings of the history. 87
As early as the post-exilic age, growing Messianic speculations, as well as cultic concerns
within Judaism, led to a scholarly interest in biblical genealogies. Later scholars regarded the
genealogies in the Hebrew Bible as accurate sources to reconstruct the Israelite history. In the
course of time scholars realised that genealogies in Genesis might have been constructed orig-
inally by linking names which have been obtained from early Near Eastern mythological tra-
ditions and legends. Mythical names were probably used to "fabricate" a biography of the
ancestors. Genealogies in tribal societies were often applied to indicate the political and so-
cial relationships between tribes. Therefore, biblical genealogies were regarded as accounts
of tribal origins and interrelationships. Much of the genealogical material comes from late
sources in Israel's history, of which the earliest genealogies are from a source not older than
the Davidic period. Late sources might, however, contain early material; therefore early oral
units could have been linked artificially in the genealogies, but may also contain pure fabrica-
tions. The question is whether Ancient Near Eastern writers considered genealogy an histori-
ographic genre, whether they had the same function and form at written and oral levels, and
whether they developed out of narrative traditions. In tribal societies kinship relationships,
which linked a person to other people, played an important role.88
Moye89 mentions that 'the intricate interrelation of genealogy and mythical narrative, then,
serves not only to unify the text as a whole but also to unite the mythical paradigm of
82
Moye 1990:590.
83
For example, the repeated phrase: 'and Adam knew his wife' (Gen 4:1, 25), encloses the Cain narrative (Moye
1990:590).
84
Genesis 5:1.
85
Genesis 2:4a.
86
Moye 1990:590.
87
88
Wilson1977:1-3, 7-8, 18.
89
Moye 1990:577, 591.
317
dissociation from and reunion with the divine to the historical paradigm of exile and return,
which is the informing pattern of the Hebrew Bible as a whole'. He furthermore indicates that
the intimate relation between history and fiction should be recognised; history being a "slip-
pery term", while the meaning of fiction is ambiguous.
Regarding some aspects, Ancient Near Eastern material has clear similarities to the Cainite
genealogy in Genesis 4:17-26. 'Both the Mesopotamian and biblical traditions speak of seven
figures or seven generations of ancestors who lived before the flood and who were the found-
ers of various arts of civilization.'90 This number corresponds to the lists of the seven apkallu,
the "seven wise ones" or the "Seven Sages". Most scholars agree that the majority of names
in the Cainite "genealogy of seven" are not Hebrew, but rather of Babylonian origin. 91 The
apkallus were individuals who were never depicted as genealogically related. 92 In Sumerian
mythology they teach humanity the art of civilisation. The number ten in the Sethite genealo-
gy is consistent with the same number of antediluvian kings, or heroes, in the Mesopotamian
tradition. The last name was that of the hero of the Flood. 93 In the Koran five idols are men-
tioned who were erected by the descendants of Cain, namely Wadd, Sowa, Yaghut, Ya’uk and
Nasr.94
'A number of scholars suggest that Gen. 4:17-24 once circulated orally and functioned as a
genealogy of the Kenite tribe.'95 Cain and the Kenites are also linked in Judges 4:11. Heber,
the Kenite, is said to have separated from Cain; he is also identified with the sons of Hobab,
the Kenite – or Midianite – father-in-law of Moses.96 Scholars therefore conclude 'that Cain
is simply another name for the Kenite tribe'. 97 Other scholars, however, negate the theory that
Cain was the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites. Lewy98 refers to Cain as the 'name of the
imagined ancestor of the Kenites'. He is of the opinion that the Kenites worshipped Yahweh
or Yahu – whom he describes as a storm-and-fire god of the mountains – but that they did not
know the origin of such worship and therefore attributed it to their ancestor Cain. According
90
Wilson 1977:154.
91
Westermann 1984:325, 328.
92
Wilson 1977:154.
93
Kunin 1995:184.
94
Guirand 1996:323.
95
Wilson 1977:156.
96
English bible translations (such as the ESV) of Judges 4:11 read: 'Now Heber the Kenite had separated from
the Kenites … '. The Hebrew text reads: !yqm drpn ynyqh rbxw. See § 5.3 regarding the three names of Mo-
ses' father-in-law.
97
Wilson 1977:156.
98
Lewy 1956:431.
318
to Westermann,99 'Cain has no connection with the family tree of the Kenites nor is he their
primal ancestor'. Blenkinsopp,100 on the other hand, refers to Cain as the ancestor of the
Kenites. Kuenen101 mentions that the narratives in Genesis were constructed based on a theo-
ry of the origin of nations. The Israelites considered nations or tribes as families. This view
is expressed, for example, in idioms such as "the house of Israel". As more time elapsed and
they thought back, the visualising of a family became smaller, until it concluded in the father
of the tribe, or of the whole nation. Narratives that "prove" the origin of nations are therefore
historically unfounded. Halpern, 102 however, indicates that the ancestry of the Kenites could
be traced to an eponym, the biblical Cain. Nolan103 suggests 'that the Cain narrative of Gene-
sis 4 is the Kenites' own aetiological legend, which they themselves composed'.
Despite the varying degrees of comment by scholars on the origin of the Kenites, there are
many traits of the Kenites that could link this tribe to Cain.
When the origin and growth of a civilisation is built into its genealogy 'one presupposes a de-
velopment in its achievements'. 104 As mentioned earlier in this paragraph, linear genealogies
consist of either ten or seven lineal descendants. The number seven obviously describes a to-
tality. Genesis 4:17-22 designates seven generations of the primeval period. In a further de-
velopment of this genealogy the beginning of urban civilisation is described with the report of
the building of the first city. 105 The genealogy is concluded with the seventh generation – the
three sons of Lamech. 106 These sons represent different occupational groups, which require
mobility to a certain extent. Therefore, taking the building of a city into account, four sepa-
rate lifestyles are reflected.107 The first son of Lamech was Jabal, who was the 'father of those
who dwell in tents and have livestock'.108 The second son was Jubal, 'the father of all those
who play the lyre and pipe'. 109 Tubal-cain was the last son, 'the forger of all instruments of
bronze and iron'. 110 Thus Jabal and Jubal, the children of Cain's wife Adah, and their descen-
dants were cattle breeders and musicians who lived in tents, while Tubal-cain – son of Zillah
99
100
Blenkinsopp 1986:359.
101
Kuenen 1882a:110.
102
Halpern 1992:17.
103
Nolan 1982:27.
104
105
Genesis 4:17.
106
107
Miller 1974:168.
108
Genesis 4:20.
109
Genesis 4:21.
110
Genesis 4:22. Tubal-cain is a compound name, of which the second noun indicates the trade (Allon
1971:906).
319
– and his descendants were smiths and metalworkers. Palestinian folklore was familiar with
two Cains who represented radically different lifestyles: Cain the city builder – together with
his son Enoch – and prototype of the settled farmer, and Cain, the name-giving ancestor of the
Kenite metalworkers.111 The founding of a city is considered to be an element of sedentary
civilisation. In contrast, the group associated with Lamech represents the nomads. 112
The Kenites – or Qenites – were a non-Israelite community or clan, frequenting the wilder-
ness of Sinai. Scholars generally agree that the etymology of the term "Kenite" implies that
they were migrating smiths. In Arabic, Syriac and Palmyrene the root qyn can form the basis
for words meaning "to forge", "metalworker". Tubal-cain, a descendant of Cain is identified
as the founder of metallurgy, and therefore the first metallurgist. His name Tubal could be
connected to Tabal, a renowned centre of metallurgy in south-eastern Cappadocia. There is,
however, no certainty whether the Kenites were named after an occupation or a particular fig-
ure. Apart from being itinerant metalworkers, they were also musical specialists who could
be connected to Cain's offspring Jubal, the archetypal musician. Their third association with
Cain could be with his son Jabal, the tent dweller and livestock breeder. The Kenites were
tent dwellers, herders, musicians and metalworkers. 113 Their traditions, thus, depict Cain as
their eponymous ancestor.
The Kenites, who might have been a clan of the Midianites, wandered in the Sinai, the Negeb,
Midian, Edom, Amalek and northern Palestine. After the "conquest" of Canaan they settled in
the Negeb,114 of which a region was named after them. 115 There may be an indication in "Ba-
laam's song"116 that the Kenites "dwelt in the rock", not far from Punon, 117 one of the main
sources of copper.118 This "rock" also appears to be a reference to the mountains of Edom
and Midian, and could denote the Edomite mountain fortress Sela, 119 close to rich copper
111
Miller 1974:169.
112
Westermann 1984:327, 330.
113
Halpern 1992:17-18.
114
Judges 1:16.
115
1 Samuel 27:10.
116
Numbers 24:21.
117
Punon was on the route of the exodus (Nm 33:42-43), and is identified with Feinan, which is forty-eight kil-
ometres south of the Dead Sea. The region is reasonably rich in water and arable soil, as well as in rich copper
mines. These mines were worked in both protohistoric and later historical periods. Archaeological surveys indi-
cate that mining took place from the Chalcolithic to the Byzantine periods. Slag heaps, crucibles and mining
installations have been found there (Negev & Gibson 2001:413).
118
119
Sela means "rock", and was an Edomite fortress city. This site has been identified with the Nabatean rock-
city of Petra, which lies halfway between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. Another site for Sela has also
been proposed, close to Buseira – biblical Bozrah. It is possible that both locations served as capitals for Edom
at different times (Fanwar 1992:1073-1074).
320
deposits.120 The Kenites' presence in the southern regions is confirmed by the discovery of a
Hebrew ostracon121 at Arad,122 wherein the place name Kinah, as well as Ramoth-Negeb is
mentioned. 123 Kinah, 124 which was situated not far from Arad, may be linked to colonisation
by Kenites of the eastern part of the Beer-sheba Valley. 125 Judges 1:16 mentions that the de-
scendants of the Kenites went up 'from the city of the palms into the wilderness of Judah,
which lies in the Negeb near Arad.' Kenite families evidently occupied settlements or cities in
the South. Narratives from the time of David refer to the cities of the Kenites. 126 These prob-
ably included Kinah127 and possibly Kain128 on the border of the wilderness of Judah. 129
Yohanan Aharoni, who excavated at Arad, revealed a raised platform – probably an altar – in
the centre of the uncovered village. He identified this village in Stratum XII 130 as the most
likely establishment of the Kenites. The altar base in the centre of the village 'may reflect in
some way the priestly background of this ancient clan'. 131 Herzog and others132 indicate that
during the tenth century BC the Israelites built an altar at Arad. They used the few remaining
stones of a previous altar, which preserved an even earlier cultic tradition of a platform that
may have been a Kenite shrine in the twelfth century BC. Dever, 133 however, mentions that
this site had no Late Bronze Age occupation. During the late tenth century BC a small, iso-
lated village was founded on the ruins of an Early Bronze city.
120
Allon 1971:906.
121
Ostraca (con): see footnote in § 2.14.2.
122
Arad was an important city in the eastern Negeb, on the border of Judah and on the main road to Edom. Dur-
ing the Early Bronze Age II there was a large fortified city on the site. During Iron Age II a new settlement was
founded on the ridge of the ancient city. In the centre of a small open village was a raised platform with an altar,
which could have been the high place where Kenite families worshipped (Jdg 1:16). More than two hundred
ostraca (inscriptions on potsherds) were found at Arad (Negev & Gibson 2001:42-44). The site is identified with
Arabic Tell 'Urad, approximately twenty-nine kilometres east of Beer-sheba (Dever 2003:29).
123
124
Kinah is one of the cities mentioned in the list of cities in Joshua 15, as the inheritance of Judah (Jos 15:20-
22). It was situated in the Negeb on the Edomite border (Jos 15:21-32). Wadi el-Qéni is mentioned as a possi-
ble site of biblical Kinah; it has been connected recently with Khirbet Ghazze, which is six to seven kilometres
south-west of Arad. The site was strategically important on the road to Edom. It consisted of a sizeable fortress.
Excavations yielded ostraca similar to those found at Arad. One of the ostraca found at Arad indicates Kinah as
one of the logistic centres of the area (Liwak 1992:39).
125
Liwak 1992:39.
126
1 Samuel 27:10; 30:29.
127
Joshua 15:22.
128
Joshua 15:57.
129
Allon 1971:907.
130
Stratum XII at Arad represents Iron Age I – twelfth to eleventh century BC (Herzog et al 1984:4).
131
Herzog et al 1984:1, 3, 6.
132
133
Dever 2003:29.
321
The Kenites, identified as metalworkers and coppersmiths – earlier in this paragraph – lived
as nomads or semi-nomads.134 According to the Song of Deborah,135 it is clear that the
Kenites dwelled in tents and kept cattle. 136 'The ease with which one branch of the Kenite
community moved from the South to the North (Judges 4:11) could be taken as a confirma-
tion of their itinerant pastoralism.'137 Evidence of their nomadic tendencies can be recognised
in certain textual references, namely, Moses' Midianite father-in-law kept flocks;138 Heber, the
Kenite, 'pitched his tent' and his wife Jael lived in a tent;139 at the time of Saul the Kenites
lived in the wilderness of Judah and avoided the arable soil; 140 the Rechabites – who were re-
lated to the Kenites – lived in tents in opposition to agriculture. 141 The curse on Cain from the
soil – see discussion further on in this paragraph – was probably perceived by the Kenites as
the origin of their nomadic lifestyle.142 Israelite tribes who lived in tents are traced back to
Jabal. According to tradition, they had herds of cattle. The Assyrian King List A records in
similar detail about seventeen kings who lived in tents.143 This particular way of living as
nomads suited the Kenites' profession as metalworkers and coppersmiths. Although tents
were thus one of the basic structures in the Ancient Near East, important for domestic, sexual,
cultic, military and agricultural purposes, they are very seldom preserved in the archaeologi-
cal record. A Midianite tent shrine at Timnah is a notable exception. 144
Scholars have also noted that the "community" of the Kenites was identical to nomadic units
at Mari. 145 In some Mari documents specific terminology for tribal units appears – for exam-
ple, gāyum, gāwum, ummatum, hibrum – which have been borrowed from West Semitic. The
term hibrum – Hebrew heber – refers to a smaller separate tribal unit of closely linked families
within the larger unit of the clan or tribe. The Hebrew Bible mentions Heber the Kenite 146 as
the name of the head of an isolated family, which appears to be a tribal subdivision that had
broken away from the parent tribe. It would seem that the name "Heber"
134
Landes 1962c:6.
135
Judges 5. The Song of Deborah – dated the end of the twelfth century BC – is one of the oldest compositions
preserved in the Hebrew Bible. It is therefore more or less contemporary with the events it describes. Although
the historicity of the poem cannot be established, it is difficult to believe that it does not celebrate an actual battle
(Schloen 1993:20-21).
136
Judges 5:24-25.
137
138
Exodus 3:1.
139
Judges 4:11, 17-18.
140
1 Samuel 15:4-8.
141
Jeremiah 35.
142
Nolan 1982:15, 28-29.
143
144
145
Halpern 1992:18.
146
Judges 4:11, 17; 5:24.
322
personifies this nomadic subdivision, of which a group of families or clans had been linked by
distinctive ties from the time of their collective wanderings. Samuel 147 mentions the "cities of
the Kenites" – which probably refer to temporary settlements similar to the alāni of the Mari
documents – that could indicate that some of the Kenites became settled farmers. As in the
Mari idiom – the hibrum ša nawim – the rest of the tribe continued to live as nomads. Heber,
the son of Beriah,148 was head of the main branch of Asher's descendants.149 Neither the
meaning of ummatum, nor the etymology thereof, has as yet been established satisfactorily.
The word normally occurs in military contexts. It may have a connection with Hebrew ’um-
mah, which is derived from Semitic ’m, mother. Ummatum could therefore denote some sort
of tribal or "mother" unit. The term, however, was applied frequently as a military term. In
the earliest stages armies were formed on the basis of families of the different tribes. Indica-
tions are that the organisation of armies in ancient Israel was the same as in Mari. The He-
brew cognate of ummatum – ’ummah – occurs only twice in the Hebrew Bible. In the first
instance it relates to the Midianites, and in the other to the closely affiliated Ishmaelites. In
both instances it signifies a tribal unit. 150
The Song of Deborah 'is an exultant song of victory by tribal leaders on the morrow of a bat-
tle, giving expression in its language and spirit to the whole gamut of nomadic attitudes and
values'.151 Desert warfare – as described in Arabian sources – could apply to the fighting hab-
its of the early Israelites, who were in many ways much like the Arabian nomads. A nomadic
attack was consistently accompanied by the shouting of war cries from both sides. Tribal cus-
tom prescribed that in a tribal community members were protected, in either way of doing
right or wrong. Running through the Hebrew Bible are repeated references to a highly devel-
oped nomadic code of honour. Nomads were constantly roaming with their herds in search of
water and pasture.152 The word "Kenite", ynyq, could have its etymology in the word for
"livestock", "cattle", hnqm.153
One of the hallmarks of the early development of civilisation in the Ancient Near East was the
ability to manipulate ores to produce strong metals. While experimentation in metallurgy
started at a very early date, it became a successful, although primitive, science during the third
147
1 Samuel 30:29.
148
1 Chronicles 7:30-40.
149
Malamat 1962:143, 145-146.
150
Malamat 1979:527-528, 533.
151
Seale 1974:27.
152
Seale 1974:33, 38, 75, 106, 115.
153
Nolan 1982:107. See also Holladay (1971:212).
323
millennium BC. 'The beginnings of metallurgy is regarded in many places throughout the
world as of the utmost importance in the history of humankind.' 154 It has a prominent place in
Sumerian, as well as Greek and Roman myths. 155 In Mesopotamia none of the ores was local-
ly available and therefore, presumably, would have been obtained through trade. High-
quality articles such as weapons and jewellery were manufactured out of chemically compli-
cated metal alloys. Mines and mining areas from antiquity were discovered in eastern Anato-
lia. Trade routes developed and gateway cities progressed along these routes.156 Anatolia
was known for its rich iron ores and also had some copper. According to Assyrian docu-
ments, a nation, Tubal, traded in copper in Asia Minor and produced metal objects. It seems
that Tubal-cain could be identified with Tubal, which is also mentioned in Ezekiel 27:13. The
el-Amarna Letters refer to a region in northern Syria as the "Land of Copper" where copper
was mined. 157
During the thirteenth century BC the Hittites discovered a process to extract iron from its
ores. At that stage the Hittite Kingdom had expanded to include virtually all of Asia Minor.
Their political dominance, however, declined dramatically following disputes concerning
royal succession. 158 By the end of the thirteenth century BC the great powers of western Asia,
including the Hittite Empire, collapsed. Egypt withdrew from Canaan. Although interna-
tional trade probably suffered, it is unlikely that it was discontinued. 159 Scholars have sug-
gested that the Kenites were a group of metalworkers who left the Hittite Empire with its
downfall and introduced the art of metallurgy to the Israelites. 160 Irnahash, known as the "city
of a serpent" – or perhaps originally "city or copper" – was a city in Judah.161 Although the
Hebrew Bible refers to copper, it is actually bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. Bronze was
one of the most important metals from as early as the beginning of the third millennium BC,
until it was later replaced by iron. 162 After 1200 BC a large amount of metal was produced
and circulated, but it was always linked to the local inhabitants. It had no connection with
154
155
Westermann 1984:333. Some gods in the myths are depicted in battledress. An example is an image of the
Greek goddess Hera – wife of the major god Zeus – on an amphora. She is fully armed with a battleshield (Wil-
lis 1993:132, 134). For an explanation of "amphora", see description incorporated in a footnote in § 2.13, subti-
tle "Taanach".
156
Kelly-Buccellati 1990:117-118, 126.
157
Negev & Gibson 2001:335. See § 2.5 in connection with the Amarna Letters.
158
Negev & Gibson 2001:231, 281, 335, 337.
159
Schloen 1993:33.
160
Frick 1971:287.
161
The site of Irnahash is unknown, but it might have been also in the territory of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem.
Scholars have suggested the site of Deir Nahas, near Beit Jibrin. See also 1 Chronicles 4:12 (Gold 1962:725).
162
324
Greeks, Phoenicians, foreign merchants, or migratory metalworkers. This period also reflect-
ed continuity in technology from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. 163
Although our knowledge of mining activities in the biblical period is limited, it seems that the
Kenites and other semi-nomadic tribes who dwelt in the South, 164 held a kind of monopoly on
copper mining and the production of copper artefacts. Important sources of copper were in
the southern Arabah, Sinai and Punon. Excavations at Tel Arad revealed a large amount of
metal objects and remains of copper metallurgy that could be dated back to the beginning of
the fourth millennium BC. The nearby Valley of Beer-sheba was the centre of copper metal-
lurgy, and copper ores from both Feinan and Timnah were well known in the Early Bronze
Age. 165 Egyptians exploited the mines in Sinai, and in the Early Iron Age at Timnah. 166 The
mines at Timnah were formerly attributed to Solomon, but recent research indicates that they
were quarried at least two centuries earlier. 167 A smelting camp of Early Iron Age I was
found in the Timnah Valley. 168 Copper smelting furnaces, as well as all the necessary metal-
lurgical equipment have been excavated. The particular technological processes that had been
applied have been reconstructed. The Egyptians operated the mines and smelters jointly with
the local inhabitants. These included Midianites, Kenites and Amalekites who preserved met-
allurgical traditions that could be traced back to prehistoric times. A small early Semitic-type
sanctuary, as well as a high place, close to the site, has also been uncovered. In paragraph
2.14.1 a twelfth century BC Egyptian temple at Timnah is discussed. This Hathor temple
shows distinct Semitic features. Among the finds at the temple were so-called Edomite pot-
tery – probably of Midianite origin – and many copper offerings, which include a copper
snake with a gilded head; the latter was probably a Midianite votive serpent. 169
The nature of mining and trade in metal products prevented the smith from establishing a
permanent domicile or to become involved in agriculture. He usually moved on when the
supply of ore was exhausted.170 'Metallurgists in antiquity, as a rule, formed proud endoge-
nous lines of families with long genealogies', and their technical lore 'was handed down and
163
Muhly 1998:320.
164
South of Palestine, Sinai Peninsula and regions where tribes such as the Midianites dwelled.
165
Hauptmann et al 1999:1, 5.
166
A description of Timnah is incorporated in a footnote in § 2.2. See also § 2.14.1.
167
Negev & Gibson 2001:281, 305, 335, 337, 365.
168
See § 2.14.1 for a description.
169
Negev & Gibson 2001:507-508.
170
Frick 1971:285.
325
guarded jealously from generation to generation'. 171 The biblical tradition gives the impres-
sion that a close link existed between the Kenites and Midianites – metalworking also being a
distinctive feature among certain Midianites, particularly the group among whom Moses set-
tled.172
Midian, who has descended from Keturah, 173 has a different mother than the main line of de-
scent from Abraham. Midian appears to be the only ideologically significant group of the
Keturite tribes. They were pastoral nomads who lived on the east side of the gulf of Aqabah.
In Exodus a positive attitude is exhibited towards Jethro, Moses' father-in-law and priest of
Midian, 174 which suggests a positive attitude towards Midian. In Numbers, 175 however,
Midian is depicted in a hostile manner. In Judges, 176 following the enslavement of the Israel-
ites, Gideon defeated the Midianites. The Hebrew Bible, thus, portrays Midian positively, as
well as strongly negatively. However, after the book of Judges, Midian does not appear to
have been ideologically significant.177 In Genesis 37, traders who took Joseph to Egypt are
termed Ishmaelites in the one text, and in the next, Midianites. 178 Revell179 explains that the
general view is that, although these names represent distinct groups, the names are derived
from two strands of tradition which have been combined in the narrative. The two names
may also be regarded as alternative designations for the same group. In Judges 8:22-24 the
term "Ishmaelite" is applied to the Midianites; however, this approach has not been supported
readily by scholars. Variant designations for a population group or an individual are common
in biblical narratives. 'Biblical narrators deployed alternative designations in just this sort of
way to specify the different roles in which a character might interact with others.' 180 Scholars
initially typified Midianites as Bedouin nomads and traders travelling by camel caravan, 181
but it has become clear that they had a 'complex and highly sophisticated society'.182 They
171
Frick 1971:285.
172
Fensham 1964:51-52.
173
Keturah was another wife of Abraham whom he took after the death of Sarah. Her children and grandchil-
dren can be identified with prominent Aramaean or Arabian tribes and cities, for example, Midian, Sheba, Dedan
(Gn 25:1-4). In terms of genealogy, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible, Keturah links Abraham to those Arabian
tribes who were not included among the descendants of Hagar (Knauf 1992a:31).
174
Exodus 3:1.
175
In Numbers 22:4-7, Midian [and Moab] hire Balaam to curse Israel; in Numbers 25 Midian is blamed for
leading the Israelites into sin; Numbers 31 describes a holy war against Midian. Psalm 83 lists Midian as a past
enemy (Kunin 1995:190).
176
Judges 6-8.
177
Kunin 1995:190.
178
Genesis 37:27-28.
179
Revell 2001:70-75.
180
Revell 2001:75.
181
Genesis 37:25-28, 36. For a description of "caravans", see footnote in § 2.9 on "caravanserai".
182
Mendenhall 1992b:817.
326
were also shepherds in the Sinai region. 183 Archaeological and other evidence for the Midian-
ites points 'to a fairly recent northern origin of important segments of the population'. 184
When scholars interpret ancient texts, they should attempt to recover what the authors meant
to convey to their audiences, and try to avoid biased readings influenced by present-day
worldviews. A goal of the social-scientific approach is 'to provide contemporary readers with
possible scenarios for understanding texts that are from cultures radically different from our
own'. 185 The pattern in traditional Middle Eastern Bedouin societies conforms more or less to
that of East African pastoral societies, where smiths and artisans are viewed with some fear.
They are often spurned and observed as dangerous sorcerers with supernatural powers. These
smiths form separate groups which are fragmented and scattered. Smiths and tinkers are con-
sidered to be from inferior tribes. In myths and traditional stories, smiths are characterised as
being both human and divine. Smiths and other artisans, as well as their families are margin-
alised in the socio-economic sphere, as they do not fully participate in economic activities,
such as agriculture or pastoralism. These marginal characteristics can also be seen in the bib-
lical portrayals of the Kenites, Midianites and Rechabites. 'The ambivalent and marginal
character of smiths and artisans is clearly represented in the figure of Cain – the biblical cul-
ture hero and first builder of a city, the eponymous ancestor of tent dwellers, musicians, and
metalsmiths – when he is compared to similar figures in other traditional culture hero sto-
ries.'186 Cain being neither fully human nor fully divine epitomises a category of a being that
is neither fully nomadic nor fully sedentary. Scholars have suggested that Genesis 4 was orig-
inally an Edomite myth explaining the origins of a group of metalworkers from the copper-
mining region east of the Arabah. 187
Huffmon188 declares that 'the story of Cain and Abel189 is dramatic and powerful, with many
dimensions … . So many possible questions are left unanswered, so many conceivable lines
of development are passed over, that the story remains elusive to us'. In the narrative the
basic occupational contrasts of shepherd and farmer are highlighted. Some scholars comment
that Yahweh's favourable response to Abel's sacrifice indicates 'a preference for the nomadic,
pastoral life as opposed to agricultural pursuits'. 190 The text does not indicate how Yahweh
183
Mendenhall 1992b:815, 817.
184
185
McNutt 1999:47.
186
McNutt 1999:54.
187
McNutt 1999:47-49, 51, 53-54, 57-58.
188
Huffmon 1985:109.
189
Genesis 4.
190
Huffmon 1985:109.
327
made his preference known. The general consensus amongst scholars is that Cain lacked the
proper attitude. Subsequent to the sacrifices that had been made, Abel's flocks were blessed
with fertility, in contrast to the field of Cain. He responded in anger and killed his brother. 191
Several Sumerian myths describe strife between deities or kings, each attempting to convince
the other of his superiority. The Cain and Abel narrative may be compared with these myths,
and should, therefore, not exclude the possibility that it was composed of two originally inde-
pendent chronicles. In the early stages of their settlement the Israelites were primarily shep-
herds and were contemptuous of the village farmers. The narrative thus probably dates from
the early days of tribal settlement in Canaan. Equating Cain the farmer with Cain of the ge-
nealogy is therefore conceivable. The genealogy no longer served as the common ancestry of
all mankind, but only of those groups – such as shepherds, musicians and metalworkers – who
were predisposed to a nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life.192 This narrative furthermore
discloses that when people live side-by-side, the possibility arises of the destruction of a hu-
man life by another human. The Song of Lamech193 is a song of the desert, as blood venge-
ance is part of life in the desert.194
The biblical text mentions that Abel brought 'the firstborn of his flock and of their fat por-
tions', while Cain brought 'an offering of the fruit of the ground'195 as a sacrifice to Yahweh.196
Genesis 3:17 mentions 'cursed is the ground because of you'. It therefore seems that Cain's
offering was rejected being produce from the ground. Man was created from the soil –
hmdah197 – but in Genesis 3:14-19 the status of hā’ădāmâ is changed and is cursed. Cain
was a tiller of the soil. 198 In response to Cain's fratricide Yahweh indicates ' … you are cursed
from the ground … it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a
wanderer on the earth'. 199 Despite this judgement, Yahweh gives Cain the assurance that 'if
anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold', and Yahweh 'put a mark on
Cain, lest any who found him should attack him'. 200
191
Huffmon 1985:109-111.
192
Miller 1974:169-171.
193
Genesis 4:23-24.
194
Westermann 1984:335-337.
195
Genesis 4:3-4.
196
Although commentators generally speak of "God" when deliberating Genesis 4, the Hebrew text throughout
refers to hwhy.
197
Genesis 2:7.
198
Herion 1995:53-54, 56-57.
199
Genesis 4:11-12.
200
Genesis 4:15.
328
As the Cain narrative is generally regarded as the aetiological legend of the Kenites, aspects
thereof are transferred to the Kenites. Brock-Utne201 explains that the firstborn and first crops
were offered as sacrifice at the beginning of the new season. When a dry season follows with
the loss of productivity, the farmer – in a bid to regain productivity – engaged in the wide-
spread custom of human sacrifice. Brock-Utne202 transfers this practice to the Cain narrative
and suggests that it could reflect on the Kenites who were known for their blood revenge.
Nolan, 203 however, indicates that there is no evidence that the Kenites ever engaged in human
sacrifice. He proposes that the Cain narrative was created as a polemic against the practice of
human sacrifice. Mendenhall204 denotes that Genesis 4 cannot 'be construed as evidence of
blood vengeance in early Israel'; it may, on the other hand, be a reaction against blood
feuds205 of desert tribes, particularly the Kenites. Although being ardent followers of Yahweh,
the Kenites were excluded from any official capacity in the cult of Israel. The Cain narrative
explicitly excludes Cain "from the face of Yahweh",206 thereby, implicitly, including the
Kenites in this preclusion.207
In Genesis 4:2 Cain is said to be 'a worker of the ground'. The woman, Eve, attributes the
birth of Cain to the expulsion of man from the garden. Despite Lamech's teaching that the
ground has been cursed,208 Yahweh does not – according to Genesis 4:11 – curse the soil, but
explains the consequences of Cain's actions. 209 According to Nolan, 210 one of the objectives
of the Cain narrative is to elucidate the Kenites' nomadic lifestyle and their alienation from
the soil. Their lack of land, furthermore, reflects a time in history when nomadism was a ne-
cessity to be a committed follower of Yahweh. The Cain and Abel saga, therefore, reflects the
life of nomadism of the Kenite Bedouin tribe.
'Cain's mark is the most apparent symbol of his ambivalent and marginal character. Regard-
less of whether the author intended some "physical" identifier, the mark is a "stigma" of sorts.
201
Brock-Utne 1936:213-215.
202
Brock-Utne 1936:207.
203
Nolan 1982:23-24.
204
205
Blood feud: an avenger of blood is an individual responsible for avenging the death of a relative. Biblical
legislators attempted to accommodate an existing convention and to restrict the practice to some extent. 'The
killing of one clan member was construed by the remaining members not only as a shedding of the group's blood
but as misappropriation of blood which properly belonged to the entire group' (Sperling 1992:763).
206
Genesis 4:14. Compare Jeremiah 35:19, 'shall never lack a man to stand before me'. The pronouncement is
addressed to the Rechabites who were related to the Kenites. Nikolsky (2002:205) indicates that this statement
'constitutes an explicit promise from God to the house of Rechab that their family shall exist forever'.
207
Nolan 1982:39.
208
Genesis 5:28-29.
209
Combs 1988:282, 286.
210
Nolan 1982:14, 41, 47.
329
But, although it denotes Cain as a "murderer", God designates him in this way precisely in
order that no one shall kill him (Gen. 4:15).'211 There is no indication what the actual mark or
sign was, but reminds of ancient customs observed by manslayers in other parts of the world.
Tribal marks serve to protect a person and indicate to which tribe he belongs. Such marks are
common amongst groups who preserved the particular tribal system. 212 Each member of the
tribe was protected by such a mark. 213 The Kenites as metalworkers had a rather unusual life-
style due to their particular trade. It seems that they benefited from a protective tattoo, to
which both the Cain and Abel story and the Song of Lamech allude. 214 There are even today
clans of coppersmiths among primitive tribes, protected by a special sign, among whom it is
considered a grave offence to harm. 215 The special sign of Yahweh identified the Kenites and
they worshipped Yahweh under his protection. The mark furthermore obliged them to avenge
the blood of a slain brother.216
The generation that precedes Cain is "Man", born from the soil, and "Woman", born from
Man. Cain's wife abruptly appears in Genesis 4:17. A solution to her sudden appearance
would be that she was also his mother. Human origins thus originate from an incest myth
which, at the same time, is the archetype of the sacred marriage. 217 According to rabbinic
legend, Cain was the son of Sammael, the brilliant character who was hurled from heaven into
the realm of darkness. He seduced Eve and she gave birth to his son Cain. After the fratri-
cide, Yahweh put one letter of the alphabet on Cain's arm as protective symbol, and the sign of
exoneration on his brow. Legend had it that a horn grew from his forehead.218 In accordance
with rabbinic legend, the Zohar219 indicates that the mark of Cain 'was one of the twenty-two
letters of the Torah, and God set it upon him to protect him'. 220
Consistent with legend, Cain was the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites, and through his
conduct they became alienated from the soil. However, by virtue of his descendant Tubal-
cain, they came forward as nomad metalworkers from the South, protected by the sign of
Yahweh – the mark of Cain.
211
McNutt 1999:55.
212
An example is found among Bedouins of today who wear their hair in a particular fashion. In parts of Africa
the tribal mark consists of a tattooed pattern on some part of the body (Frazer 1923:33).
213
Frazer 1923:33-34.
214
Miller 1974:169.
215
Allon 1971:906.
216
Nolan 1982:16.
217
Wyatt 1999c:317.
218
Rappoport & Patai 1966:194, 197.
219
See "Zohar" incorporated in a footnote in § 4.1, as well as a footnote on the Kabbalah in the same paragraph.
220
330
At the end of this chapter, Table 1 provides a synopsis of the characteristics of, and infor-
mation on the Kenites, and Table 2 a synopsis of the Kenite hypothesis and relevant aspects –
discussed hereafter.
5.3 Kenite hypothesis

221
Miller denotes that 'the origins of the worship of Yahweh are shrouded in mystery' and that
it probably reaches as far back as the Late Bronze Age. The name of the deity was important
for the Israelite community, both to identify the deity and 'also because of its character as a
kind of theologumenon for him'. 222 According to Budde,223 the first task of a true historian is
to understand tradition, yet, traditions of nations regarding their own origins 'are devoid of all
historical value'. Attempts by scholars to find the core of the ethical development of the Yah-
weh-religion, as presented by Moses, have completely failed. 224
In 1872 the Dutch historian of religion, Cornelis P Tiele, advanced the idea of the Kenite hy-
pothesis. He identified Yahweh as the god of the desert, whom the Kenites and related groups
venerated, before the Israelites did. Bernard Stade elaborated the idea in 1887, but it was Karl
Budde225 who developed the classic formulation of the theory in Germany. According to this
hypothesis, a Moses-type figure gained knowledge about Yahweh through his Kenite226 fa-
ther-in-law, Jethro, a Midianite priest,227 who – consistent with a tradition in Exodus – wor-
shipped Yahweh.228 Mount Sinai was Yahweh's sacred abode, therefore he was worshipped by
the people who dwelt in his territory: the Midianites and Kenites 229 – the latter probably a
branch of the Midianites.230 A fundamental difference existed between the Kenites and the
Israelites therein that the Israelites had chosen Yahweh as their God, whereas the Kenites had
served their god from time immemorial. 231 'In its classical form the hypothesis assumes that
the Israelites became acquainted with the cult of Yahweh through Moses.' 232 It seems
221
Miller 2000b:1.
222
Miller 2000b:1. Theologumenon/theologoumenon is a theological doctrine that sheds light on the connec-
tions among different dogmas – an authoritative official statement of ecclesiastical belief – but does not repre-
sent a revealed truth or historical verification (Deist 1990:75, 258).
223
Budde 1899:1-2.
224
Budde 1899:35.
225
Budde 1899:17-25, 35-38, 52-60. For bibliographic references on relevant work by Tiele and by Stade, see
van der Toorn (1999e:912).
226
Judges 1:16; 4:11.
227
Exodus 2:16, 21; 3:1; 18:1.
228
Exodus 18:10-12.
229
Budde 1899:18-19.
230
Presumably on account of different traditions, Moses' father-in-law is termed a Midianite (Ex 2:16-21; 18:1)
and a Kenite (Jdg 1:16; 4:11).
231
Budde 1899:35.
232
331
probable that, at the beginning of his sojourn in Midian, 233 Moses was initiated into Yahweh-
worship by his priestly father-in-law, eventually being confronted by Yahweh himself from
the burning bush.234 This Moses introduced Yahweh to a group migrating from Egypt to Pal-
estine, and equated Yahweh with their ancestral divine traditions. In time to come the mi-
grants acquainted the tribes of Judah with Yahweh.
The British scholar Rowley235 developed Budde's hypothesis. He argues that 'Yahweh was
the God of the Kenites before the days of Moses', and that Jethro was a priest of Yahweh. The
Israelites accepted Yahweh as their God, mainly on account of Yahweh's action to save them
from the power of the Egyptians, and not on account of Moses' mediation of the Kenite reli-
gion. Yahweh thus meant something quite different to the Israelites than to the Kenites. It is
therefore 'not surprising that Israel Yahwism had a new quality and was lifted to a new lev-
el'. 236 Moses could only contemplate a religion that expressed itself in a form of worship that
could be taken over from the Kenites, but infused with a new spirit. It is furthermore unlikely
that Jethro – if he was a priest of some other god and not of Yahweh – would have offered a
sacrifice to Yahweh [Elohim]. Rowley237 denotes that a feast, similar to the Passover, had
been observed among the Kenites in their "Yahweh" cult before the time of Moses. Passover
was a feast from antiquity, but separate from the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with which it
was later associated.
A strong point of this classic hypothesis is the recurring biblical tradition of Yahweh's geo-
graphical link with the South:
Deuteronomy 33:2, 'The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he
shone forth from Mount Paran.'
Judges 5:4, 'Lord, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the region
of Edom.'
Psalm 68:8, 'the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain,
before God, the One of Sinai,
before God, the God of Israel'.
Habakkuk 3:3, 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran.'
233
Exodus 2:15-22.
234
Exodus 3.
235
Rowley 1967:43-48.
236
Rowley 1967:44.
237
Rowley 1967:47.
332
As discussed in the previous paragraph – 5.2 – the Kenites dwelled in the South, in the region
of the Midianites. A strong tradition links them to Cain as their eponymous ancestor. This
tradition explains their metalworking abilities and their alienation from the soil – they were a
roaming, nomad group. The Kenites were, furthermore, allegedly attributed with a symbol or
mark that protected them and distinguished them from other groups. 238 Albertz239 indicates
that Yahweh was a southern Palestinian mountain god, worshipped by the freedom-loving
nomadic tribes, 'before he became the god of liberation for the Moses group'. Yahweh, who
had his home in the mountainous regions south of Palestine, was thus worshipped by the no-
madic Midianites and Kenites. Later traditions disguised any connection between the Moun-
tain of God and the Midianites, and thus of any pre-Israelite worship of Yahweh. If Yahweh –
as all indications are – emanated from the South, the question arises how the northern Israel-
ites – and maybe even other nations – became acquainted with him. Scholars conjecture that
the Kenites, as well as other marginal groups, moving as metal traders and smiths along cara-
van routes, brought Yahweh to the North.240
This theory – that the Yahwistic cult originated in the South – is supported by the thesis pro-
pounded by a number of scholars, namely that the name Yahweh emanated from the southern
regions. The origin of the designation Yahweh is discussed in paragraph 4.2. One of the sug-
gestions by scholars is that the name Yahweh developed from a well-known Arabic interjec-
tion Ya combined with huwa – the third person masculine personal pronoun; Ya-huwa thus
meaning 'Oh He'. The god concerned is therefore spoken of as the mystical "He". Ancestors
of the North Sinaitic tribes may have called their god "He", and worshipped him with the cul-
tic cry Ya-huwa – "Oh He". Mowinckel241 indicates that divine names which have originated
elsewhere from cultic exclamations, have been attested. Ringgren 242 denotes that there are
approximately fifteen occurrences on inscriptions of the Nabataean divine name ’hy. Scholars
have also suggested that Moses came across this Nabataean name as the name of the local dei-
ty of Hereby, the Mountain of God. 243 There is, however, a long time lapse separating these
inscriptions and the time of Moses.
The divine epithet "He-of-the-Sinai" – hwhy ynpm ynys hz – appears in the Hebrew Bible in
Judges 5:5 where it is a qualification of Yahweh, and is a parallel to the designation "God of
238
Miller 1974:169.
239
Albertz 1994:52-53.
240
241
Mowinckel 1961:132-133.
242
Ringgren 1986:511.
243
Exodus 3:1.
333
Israel". Before he was the God of Israel, Yahweh was the Lord of Sinai. This construction
has an analogy in the Nabataean "He-of-the-Šara-Mountain". The original name of the deity
–"He" – has been replaced by the designation ‛dAširat’. Psalm 68:9 is a quotation of Judges
5:5. These two texts indicate that a tradition of a god "Yahweh-he-of-the-Sinai" existed. Dei-
ties were originally specified according to their cult-place.244
Axelsson245 denotes that, apart from the geographical pointer in the relevant texts – which in-
dicates that "Yahweh came forth from the South"246 – a second element depicts the natural
phenomena that accompanied these events. Yahweh's coming from the South, with the con-
current epiphany descriptions, does not, however, suggest a feature in these texts which is in-
herent to an epiphany genre, but rather an independent element of tradition that was assimilat-
ed into the epiphany account. These depictions of Yahweh's theophany seem to have no con-
nection with Yahweh's divine revelation on Mount Sinai, and therefore no association with the
Sinai tradition in Exodus. Consequently Sinai – regarding these particular "epiphany texts" –
probably refers to a region, rather than to a specific mountain. The belief that Yahweh
dwelled on Mount Sinai was possibly due to Yahweh-veneration there. There is no clear indi-
cation where Mount Sinai is situated. The different epiphanies indicate that Yahweh came
from the territory where 'the oldest worship of YWHW that is detectable in the OT is attest-
ed'. 247 All the relevant names link directly, or indirectly, with Edom.
Genealogically the Edomites are the nation closest to the Israelites. 248 Scholars, however, dif-
fer about what the actual relationship between the Edomites and Israelites was. Although bib-
lical sources signify that the early Edomites had a developed centralised monarchy, they were
primarily a nomadic group right into the thirteenth century BC. 249 With the exception of the
copper mining areas of the Feinan region, scant archaeological evidence has been found of
any population group – either sedentary or nomadic – in Edom during the Middle Bronze and
Late Bronze Ages. However, sites have been found for the Iron I period, with an increased
population during Iron Age II. A considerable number of these sites appear to be agricultural
244
Niehr 1999b:387. Masoretic Text: Psalm 68:9; English Standard Version: Psalm 68:8.
245
Axelsson 1987:56-59.
246
See earlier reference in this paragraph to the texts from Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:8; Habak-
kuk 3:3.
247
Axelsson 1987:59. Yahweh was seen 'as coming from various parts of a cohesive territory around the north-
ern part of the Gulf of Aqaba, running from the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula, over the mountainous
areas south of Judah across the Wadi el-‛Araba, and down to the northwestern border of the Arabian peninsula'
(Axelsson 1987:59).
248
See Genesis 25:24-26 for the birth of Esau and Jacob; Esau is called Edom, father of the Edomites – Genesis
36:1, 8-9; Jacob is renamed Israel, father of the Israelites – Genesis 35:10.
249
Kunin 1995:186.
334
settlements.250 As from the thirteenth century BC the Transjordanian area – south of the Jab-
bok River – began to be resettled, mainly by Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite and Israelite cul-
tures.251 The first known Edomite settlement was located on the Arabah road, indicating a
link with Tell el-Kheleifeh near the Gulf of Aqaba. There are also important connections with
larger Edomite towns in the eastern highlands. 252
Despite Edom and Israel's "brotherhood" relationship, Edom was symbolised as 'the most evil
of enemies deserving judgment and wrath of Yahweh'. 253 It seems, however, as if the Deuter-
onomist intentionally opposed the customary disgust of and hate for Edom. Deuteronomy
23:7 states that an Edomite should be treated as a fellow Israelite, and not as a pagan alien. 254
Knowledge and appreciation of the important connection and essential similarity between the
Israelite and Edomite religions may have been a decisive element that influenced the Deuter-
onomist to readily accept the Edomites into the Israelite religious community. The Deuteron-
omist, furthermore, places a much higher value on the Edomites than on the Ammonites or
Moabites; the Edomites were later admitted to the Israelite worshipping community. Alt-
hough Yahweh is linked to the land of Edom it does not necessarily imply that the Edomites
venerated Yahweh as their god.255 Van der Toorn256 indicates that, by the fourteenth century
BC, 'groups of Edomite and Midianite nomads worshipped Yahweh as their god', before the
Israelites became acquainted with the cult of Yahweh. It could, therefore, be deduced that – as
Yahweh "came forth from the South" – he became the major God of Israel owing to an Edom-
ite-Midianite influence.
The Kenite hypothesis is also supported by data obtained from Egyptian records. These re-
cords – as indicated hereafter – are discussed in paragraphs 2.6 and 4.3.4. Fourteenth and
thirteenth century BC Egyptian texts mention 'Yhw [Yahu] in the Land of the Shasu'.257 Papy-
rus Anastasi VI – ca twelfth century BC – links the Shasu (or Shosu) tribes and Edom,258
while thirteenth and twelfth century BC records of Ramesses II and Ramesses III 259 identify
Mount Seir and Seir with the Shasu nomads. Although these texts do not directly connect
250
MacDonald 1992:296.
251
MacDonald 1994:236.
252
Lapp 1994:226.
253
Lapp 1994:216.
254
Bartlett 1989:182. Deuteronomy 23:7: 'You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother'.
255
Bartlett 1989:184, 198-199.
256
257
See footnotes in § 4.3.4.
258
See footnotes in § 2.6.
259
See footnotes in § 2.6.
335
Edom and Seir – the latter a mountainous region identified with Edom260 – they do mention
that both regions were peopled by Shasu. These two regions are also frequently coupled in
the Hebrew Bible. 261 According to this information, it thus seems that Shasu Bedouins, who
roamed the Sinai regions, could be linked to Edom in southern Transjordan and Seir. These
Bedouins were known as unruly people, disrupting the peaceful mountain regions of Ca-
naan. 262 The said texts also connect Yahu to the "land of the Shasu", while biblical texts asso-
ciate Yahweh with Seir and Edom.263 It could thus be deduced that Yahu was known by the
Shasu, and probably venerated by them. The Shasu are also connected with Seir and Edom,
and Edom with the Kenites and Midianites. It is likewise conceivable that among the Shasu
there were Edomites, Midianites, Kenites and related marginalised groups. Many scholars
have identified the Kenites as being related to the Edomites.264 The Kenites were considered
non-Israelite.265 In a document, dated ca 1000 BC, an Egyptian official asks for help against
an oppressor, who had been with "those of Seir". Together with the other Egyptian texts –
referred to in this paragraph – this document confirms at least intermittent relations between
Egypt and an inhabited Edom/Seir from the thirteenth into the tenth century BC. It is, howev-
er, difficult to date Edom from biblical evidence. 266
Van der Toorn267 agrees that it could tentatively be concluded that the "Shasu Bedouins of
Yahu" should be sought in the regions of Edom and Midian. An Edomite connection – con-
cerning Yahweh – was probably also established in Northern Israel. References to Yahweh's
origins from the South occur in texts from the Northern Kingdom. 268 Inscriptions at Kuntillet
‛Ajrud – an outpost of Northern Israel – also mention "Yahweh of Teman". 'Paradoxically,
the belief that Yahweh came from the South was at home in the North.' 269 Scholars theorise
that king Saul – a man from Edomite descent – introduced Yahweh, as the Edomite god from
the South, into Israel.270 By reason of their particular trade – which brought about that they
were bound to a migratory existence – the Kenites and associated groups of metalworkers had
260
Negev & Gibson 2001:454. See footnotes in § 2.6 in connection with Edom and Seir.
261
Biblical links are, for example, in Numbers 24:18; Judges 5:4.
262
Zevit 2001:118.
263
See biblical texts in this paragraph that link Yahweh with the South.
264
Bartlett 1989:198.
265
266
MacDonald 1994:232-233.
267
268
References to "Seir and Edom" in the Song of Deborah (Jdg. 5:4), "Sinai" in Psalm 68:8 and "Teman" in
Habakkuk 3:3.
269
270
Human 1999:496-497. See also § 5.1.
336
the opportunity to spread their religious beliefs. Some scholars connect the Proto-Israelites
with the Shasu and also with the habiru.271
Between the late thirteenth and late twelfth centuries BC, parts of western Asia were laid
waste through drought and famine. The dominance of Egypt over Canaan disintegrated and
international trade dwindled. As a consequence of these events Canaanites, Shasu, and other
groups moved into the central highlands and Judean hills. Small isolated villages, structured
around traditional kin-based groups, were founded.272 During the eighth and seventh centu-
ries BC Kenite caravans probably played an important role in the channelling of southern
trade through Jerusalem to Assyrian provinces. The Balaam oracle 273 suggests that some
Kenites were deported by Assyria – possibly in the period 734-733 BC during the war of Tig-
lath-pileser III274 against the Arabs.275
Heber, the Kenite and a metal craftsman, separated from the Kenites and pitched his tent "far
away" in the northern regions where, according to Judges 4:11, he settled at the "Oak in
Zaanannim"276 near Kedesh.277 Heber seems to have been the head of an isolated family, al-
though there is an allusion in the text 278 'to a tribal subdivision that had broken away from the
parent tribe … and wandered far afield in search of pasture'. 279 He probably personified this
nomadic subdivision – ber; thus originally being a group of principally nomadic families
roaming together, and linked by a special bond from the time of their communal wander-
ings. 280 Soggin281 is of the opinion that the "separation of Heber, the Kenite from the descen-
dants of Hobab", better fits the description of a clan than of an individual who broke away
from the main group. Heber, as a name, appears only three times in the biblical text, and al-
ways in a context where a clan is listed. 282 In the older West Semitic languages – such as at
271
See § 2.4 and § 2.5 for information on the habiru.
272
Nakhai 2003:140-141. When Egypt dominated Canaan, they forced Canaan to provide them with agricultural
products, livestock, raw materials and manufactured goods. Forced labour was also implemented (Nakhai
2003:140-141).
273
Numbers 24:22.
274
See footnote in § 2.7 for information on Tiglath-pileser III.
275
Halpern 1992:19.
276
Zaanannim was a border point in the territory of Naphtali (Jos 19:33) and also the site where Sisera was slain
(Jdg 4:11-22). The exact location of Zaanannim is unknown, but could be identified possibly with the site Khan
et-Tujjar, a caravan station on the road from Beth-shan to Damascus (Van Beek 1962b:926).
277
Kedesh was a Canaanite town in the eastern Galilee, in Naphtali (Mihelic 1962:4-5), situated in the Jezreel
Valley (Malamat 1962:145).
278
Judges 4:11, 17, 24.
279
Malamat 1962:145. See also § 5.2.
280
Malamat 1962:146.
281
Soggin 1981:90-91.
282
Genesis 46:17; Numbers 26:45; 1 Chronicles 4:18.
337
Mari and Ugarit – the word hibrum appears, but also in the context of a clan. A single excep-
tion was found in a text from Ebla, with the personal name habari. Heber is denoted as a de-
scendant of Hobab [Jethro], father-in-law of Moses, and as a husband of Jael. 283 According to
the Song of Deborah, Jael killed the Canaanite Sisera.284 The narrator initially portrays
Heber's actions as treasonous to Israel – 'there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and
the house of Heber the Kenite'285 – but, later, his wife Jael is twice called blessed.286 In
Judges 4 and 5 Heber is regularly portrayed as subordinate to Jael. His name appears with
"Jael, wife of Heber", or he is not mentioned at all.287 'The narrator condemns Heber through
silence.'288 Thus Heber, as a Kenite – who probably was a devotee of Yahweh – had the op-
portunity to spread his belief in the northern regions of Palestine. Jehonadab ben Rechab, a
descendant of the Rechabites – a marginal group connected to the Kenites – appeared in
Northern Israel; the Yahwist faith could thus have been spread also by the Rechabites in the
North.
In the Song of Deborah only six tribes from the central and northern hill country are listed
who came forth to fight. Non-tribal economic and political alliances existed between the
other neutral tribes and neighbouring Canaanites. The fighting highlanders were, however,
politically independent and economically self-sufficient. There are indications in Judges 5
that the Israelite tribes profited 289 from the trade of the caravan290 operators, who crossed the
hills of Palestine and travelled along the Jezreel Valley. Yet, travel on highways was stopped
by Canaanites compelling travellers to take byways. Caravan trade was entirely to the benefit
of the ruling elite. These were some of the grievances causing war between the Israelite tribes
and the Canaanites.291 Recent anthropological research by scholars emphasises the role of in-
dependent entrepreneurs, particularly in long-distance trade. During the second millennium
BC privately operated caravans were a common feature. The long-term threat to travellers
and the stifling of caravan movements and other traffic were, among others, a cause of con-
flict and 'is not an incidental detail in the poem [Judges 5]; it was the casus belli'.292 Sisera
283
Judges 5:24.
284
Judges 4:17-22; 5:24-27.
285
Judges 4:17.
286
Judges 5:24.
287
Judges 4:17, 21; 5:24. In Judges 4:18, 22; 5:6, Jael is mentioned without referring to her husband.
288
Nysse 1992:94.
289
Exorbitant tolls were imposed; there was outright plunder; Cananite Sisera and his allies restrained caravan
traffic through the Plain of Jezreel. Israelite highlanders were provoked into war to protect their economic inter-
ests (Schloen 1993:20).
290
See an explanation of "Caravans", incorporated in a footnote in § 2.9.
291
As described in the Song of Deborah, Judges 5.
292
Schloen 1993:18, 20, 23-25. Casus belli is 'an act or situation that is used to justify a war' (Wehmeyer
2005:220).
338
and his allies expected to plunder silver (Judges 5:19), female slaves (Judges 5:30), dyed and
embroidered textiles (Judges 5:30). Archaeologists indicate that these spoils are typical
caravan commodities, and thus do not refer to booty expected from the Israelite villagers who
were decidedly impoverished in comparison to the Canaanite lowlanders. 293
The Midianites – normally portrayed as the arch-enemies of Israel294 – were evidently among
those who celebrated the victories of Yahweh and the Israelite villagers over the Canaanites –
as depicted in Judges 5:10-11. Although Midian is not referred to by name in these texts, it is
obvious that Midianite leaders would have been among them, 'since by all accounts the Midi-
anites were caravaneers par excellence'.295 It also seems that the caravan traders from the
Negev and North-West Arabia had friendly dealings with the Israelite villagers of the hill
country, and perhaps may even have intermarried with them. Heber the Kenite – husband of
Jael, who killed Sisera – is denoted as a descendant of Moses' father-in-law Hobab296 – also
known as Jethro, the Midianite priest.297 There is thus obviously an association between the
Midianites and Kenites. It is significant that it was a Kenite – and not an Israelite – who con-
quered the enemy.298
'Early Israelite traditions preserve a memory of close association with the Midianites.' 299 The
origin of the name midyan is unknown. The genealogy in Genesis 25:2 includes two descen-
dants of Abraham's wife Keturah, midyan and medan. Both these cognates appear in Greek
sources of the Hellenistic Period as names of towns east of the Gulf of Aqaba. 300 Biblical ac-
counts of the Midianites of the Late Bronze Age are presented as "a seemingly ubiquitous
people" who were found in the Sinai regions, Egypt, Moab and Edom, as well as on the north-
south trade routes. They are associated with or related to the Edomites, Kenites, Ishmaelites,
Hagarites and Kenizzites. There are also some connections with the Amalekites and Moabites
– and maybe even with the Ammonites. 301 Dumbrell302 suggests that, considering the puz-
zling features of its geographic distribution, rather than depicting Midian as a land, the name
should be applied as 'a general term for an amorphous league of the Late Bronze Age, of wide
293
Schloen 1993:30.
294
See, for example, Judges 6.
295
Schloen 1993:26.
296
Judges 4:11.
297
Exodus 3:1.
298
Schloen 1993:26-27, 30-31. See Judges 5:24-27.
299
Schloen 1993:31.
300
301
Dumbrell 1975:323.
302
Dumbrell 1975:323, 327.
339
geographical range'. The Keturah-tribes, 303 such as Midian, controlled the Arabian desert.
Midian featured predominantly in this area and, together with the Ishmaelites, were found
astride the main trade routes.304 The territories of Edom, Seir, Moab, Reuben and the Sinai
Peninsula have been surveyed intensively in recent years. Archaeological remains of Midian
revealed a developed civilisation at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the
Iron Age. These discoveries include a fortified citadel, extensive irrigation systems and char-
acteristic pottery.305 After the Judges period the Midianites seemed to have disappeared from
the biblical historical scene. From the eleventh century BC onwards the Ishmaelites gained
prominence in the Transjordanian area.306
It is clear that Midian dominated the South and that it had a significant influence over a wide
region. Those tribes who grouped with Moses probably travelled between Egypt and Midian
along major caravan routes – controlled by Midian – northwards. 'The social implications of
long-distance trade involve not just the intertwining of different ethnic groups or the growth
of disparities in wealth and status, but also opportunities for the communication of new ide-
as.'307 Therefore, if Yahwism originated amongst the Kenites and Midianites – which, accord-
ing to the Kenite hypothesis, seems likely – this cult could have spread through the Transjor-
dan and the highlands of Canaan, along caravan routes from the South. This "caravan hy-
pothesis" – as Schloen308 calls his theory– of long-distance trade, is but only one factor in the
complexities of the emergence of Israel. The highland population that eventually came forth
as "Israel" probably comprised a mixture of indigenous hill country inhabitants, pastoralists
from the South and East, as well as lowland peasant farmers from the West.309
The Kenite hypothesis alludes to Moses' contact with Jethro, a Midianite priest. 310 After his
escape from Egypt, Moses became acquainted with Jethro and married his daughter Zipporah.
Jethro thus became his father-in-law.311 Moses' marriage to Zipporah – daughter of a Midian-
ite priest – therefore had the implication that the descendants of Moses were of mixed Midi-
anite/Kenite and Israelite (Levite) blood. This Jethro was also known as Reuel, 312 or
303
Genesis 25:1-4.
304
Dumbrell 1975:323, 327, 330-331.
305
Cross 1998:63-64.
306
Dumbrell 1975:330-331.
307
Schloen 1993:36.
308
Schloen 1993:36-37.
309
Schloen 1993:31-32, 36-37.
310
Exodus 3:1.
311
Exodus 2:15-21; 3:1; 4:18; 18:1, 5, 12.
312
Exodus 2:16-18.
340
Hobab. 313 According to the Hebrew Bible, 'Jethro was a priest of Yahweh in a unique capaci-
ty'.314 After 'Jethro rejoiced for all the good that the LORD [Yahweh] had done to Israel', and
declared 'now I know that the LORD [Yahweh] is greater than all gods',315 the following He-
brew text states that 'Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to
God [Elohim] … to eat bread before God [Elohim]'. 316 The Kenite hypothesis implies that the
Midianite priest Jethro was associated with a pre-Mosaic Yahweh cult, and that Moses was
introduced by Jethro to the beliefs and rituals of this cult. This concept, therefore, contends
that Yahwism has Midianite – and Kenite – roots. Moses furthermore received practical ad-
vice from Jethro.317 Slayton,318 however, asserts that 'it is doubtful that the concept of Yah-
wistic worship sprang from the Midianites'.
Different names for Jethro are recorded in the Hebrew Bible. He is twice called Reuel, 319 and
in Judges 4:11 he is named Hobab, although Numbers 10:29 indicates that Hobab is actually
Reuel's son. Several explanations have been proposed for this confusion in names. The
various names may have come from different traditions or sources, or Jethro may have been
known by divergent names and titles given to him by the different Midianite clans. 320 Reuel
was also the name of a son of Esau 321 and was one of the three major Edomite tribes. Hobab
was the 'eponymous ancestor of a Kenite clan that settled in the Negeb among the tribe of
Judah'.322 This clan possibly belonged to the Edomite tribe Reuel, before they relocated to
Judah. Moses' Midianite father-in-law, also known by the name Reuel, may therefore be
linked to the Edomite tribe Reuel. 323 Hobab was thus most likely Moses' brother-in-law.
Moses requested Hobab – who was familiar with the territory – to accompany them when
they set out to the Promised Land. 324 Hobab's response is not recorded.325 According to the
313
Judges 4:11.
314
Slayton 1992:821. Exodus 18:1, 7-11.
315
Exodus 18:9a, 11a.
316
Exodus 18:12. The contents of Exodus 18:1-27 is ascribed to the Elohist, but mixed with the J-narrator (Bos-
hoff et al 2000:104), which explains – to a certain extent – the reference to Yahweh and to Elohim in the same
context.
317
Exodus 18:13-27.
318
Slayton 1992:821.
319
Exodus 2:18; Numbers10:29.
320
Slayton 1992:821.
321
Genesis 36:4, 10, 13, 17; 1 Chronicles 1:35, 37.
322
Knauf 1992b:693.
323
Knauf 1992b:693-694.
324
Numbers 10:29-32.
325
Launderville 1992:234-235.
341
Zohar,326 Jethro – the father-in-law of Moses – descended from Cain and was therefore,
according to tradition, called a Kenite. 327
A temple dated from the Israelite Monarchical Period was discovered at Tel Arad. 328 When
the Israelites built their altar in the tenth century BC, it was constructed on a platform that
may have been a twelfth century BC Kenite shrine. Judges 1:16 mentions that the Kenites
settled in the Negeb of Arad. This shrine was erected in the middle of the territory and was
thus well positioned to serve inhabitants of the eastern Negeb in their cultic practices. While
the text in Judges, in the Hebrew Bible, refers to the descendants of Moses' Kenite father-in-
law, the Septuagint 329 adds that Hobab, the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law, settled in the Neg-
eb.330 Finkelstein331 indicates that the small unfortified site at Tel Arad could be connected to
the Kenites that settled in the "Negeb near Arad". Cross332 denotes that Midianite epic
sources point to the possibility of a pre-Israelite sanctuary of Yahweh in the mountainous re-
gions east of the Gulf of Elath. Events in early Israel's epic cycle revolve around a number of
sanctuaries, including an old sanctuary in the South.
Scholars speculate that Hobab – an eponym of a Kenite tribe [or clan] – practised priestcraft
and ritual, and erected a shrine with an altar and twbcm333 in the Negeb. It is therefore possi-
ble that the Kenite Hobab-family – through their relation to Moses – attended to important
functions in the early Israelite priesthood and worship. 334 Allon335 likewise assumes 'that this
venerated family served as priests in the sanctuary' in the Negeb. Nolan336 mentions that
Cain, the alleged eponymous ancestor of the Kenites, brought his sacrifice directly to Yah-
weh,337 a role which was later fulfilled by the priest. He furthermore indicates that the phrase
"from the face of Yahweh"338 is actually a technical term to explain the Kenites' exclusion
326
See "Zohar", incorporated in a footnote in § 4.1.
327
Sperling & Simon 1931:108. Judges 1:16.
328
329
330
Herzog 2001:171.
331
332
Cross 1998:46.
333
Massebot or standing stones: see § 2.14.1.
334
Herzog 2001:171.
335
Allon 1971:907.
336
Nolan 1982:33, 40.
337
Genesis 4:3.
338
See also Genesis 4:14.
342
later from the cultic function. Van der Toorn339 denotes that in an 1862 publication,340 the
author defends the view that Yahweh, as the god of the Kenites, was worshipped as a solar
god in the form of a metal image.
Although Fensham341 is inclined to side with those scholars who criticise the concept of the
Kenite hypothesis, he nonetheless theorises that, as the result of Moses' meeting with his Mid-
ianite [or Kenite] father-in-law, a treaty was formed between the Israelites and Kenites. He
indicates that the relationship between the Kenites and the Israelites is one of the most dis-
cussed and difficult problems in the Masoretic Text, which records only a few scattered de-
tails. The Hebrew Bible furthermore signifies that a friendship existed between the Kenites
and the Israelites; intermarriage may have justified an affinity between them. Fensham 342
poses the question whether such a relation was possibly based on a treaty between two equal
groups. When Saul schemed to attack the Amalekites, he warned the Kenites who subse-
quently left the particular region of the Amalekites. 343 The reason for Saul's action could be
the existence of a treaty of "covenant love" between the Kenites and Israelites. Exodus 18
probably forms the basis for Saul's approach. According to the tradition preserved in this
chapter, 'Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aa-
ron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God'.344
This action could indicate that God was witness to the forming of a treaty, which in the An-
cient Near East was usually accompanied by a sacrifice to a god, or gods. According to bibli-
cal tradition, a sacrifice was brought at the making of the Covenant at Sinai. 345
"Defensive alliance" treaties were customary in the Ancient Near East. Two relevant parties
pledge their mutual assistance in the case of hostility from a third party. Probably as a result
of such a treaty between the Israelites and Kenites, Jael – the wife of Heber, the Kenite – aid-
ed Israel against the onslaught of the Canaanites. 346 In a letter discovered at Mari the making
of a covenant between the Idamaras and Hanaeans is mentioned. During this ceremony an
339
340
F W Ghillany wrote in 1862, under the pseudonym Richard van der Alm, his Theologische Briefe an die Ge-
bildeten der Deutschen Nation, vol 1, 216, 480. Ghillany may have been the first to advance the Kenite hypoth-
esis, but Tiele was the first to present the hypothesis in an acceptable form (Van der Toorn 1995:247).
341
Fensham 1964:51-52.
342
Fensham 1964:52-54.
343
1 Samuel 15:6.
344
Exodus 18:12.
345
Exodus 24:5.
346
Judges 4:17-22; 5:24-27.
343
ass was slaughtered, probably meant as sacrifice to the gods, while part of the sacral animal
was utilised for a communal meal. 347
Although Van der Toorn348 agrees that the Kenite hypothesis establishes a connection among
different sets of data – namely the absence of Yahweh from West Semitic epigraphy, the
topographical link with the South, the Kenite association with Moses, and the positive evalua-
tion of the Kenites in the Hebrew Bible – he mentions that it has a weakness in its disregard
for the "Canaanite" origins of Israel. He indicates that the view of the hypothesis, that the Is-
raelites became Yahwists under influence of Moses during their sojourn in the Wilderness,
and that they brought their newly acquired religion to Palestine, ignores the fact that the ma-
jority of Israelites were already established in Palestine. Furthermore, the historicity of Mo-
ses is problematic. It was only in later traditions that he became the symbol of the "Yahweh-
alone" movement. Although it is "highly plausible" that the Kenites introduced the Israelites
to the worship of Yahweh, it is unlikely that this was done outside the borders of Palestine.
Notwithstanding the fact that the biblical tradition portrays the Kenites as loyal supporters of
the Israelites and Yahwism, McNutt349 denotes that they were never fully incorporated into
the Israelite society. In Numbers 24350 it was predicted that the Kenites would disappear – an
instance in which they are viewed unfavourably. She furthermore mentions that, although the
Kenites presumably had connections with nomadic or semi-nomadic metalsmiths, they are
never explicitly identified as such.
Wyatt351 is of the opinion that 'the so-called Kenite hypothesis can hardly be regarded as cer-
tain …, and with regard to its attempt to explain the rise of Mosaic-Yahwism, it must be re-
garded as being very flimsy … .' He suggests that the cult of Yahweh rose to national im-
portance during the reign of David. He may even have imposed this cult upon his northern
subjects, who evidently remained devoted to El as their major god. With the rise of the Deu-
teronomic School in the North the Yahwists naturally insisted that it was "their" God Yahweh,
and not El, who had performed the acts of the exodus and the conquest.
347
Fensham 1964:53-54.
348
349
McNutt 1993:407.
350
Numbers 24:21-22.
351
Wyatt 2005:10.
344
Albright352 indicates that, in their efforts to reconstruct biblical history, scholars attribute ho-
mogenous material to different independent sources. An example is the Kenite material in
Exodus, Numbers and Judges. Scholars misconstrue the nature of early Israelite historical
tradition, with the result that a "state of chaos" generally exists among scholars regarding the
relation between the Israelites and the Kenites. Early Israelite oral traditions – as reflected in
the Hebrew Bible – are usually confusing. For instance, the biblical text depicts three differ-
ent names for Moses' father-in-law, namely Jethro, Reuel and Hobab. He is furthermore de-
scribed as being a Midianite and a Kenite – a fact which complicates the problem. Scholars
applied several techniques in an endeavour to clarify these disparities. Superficial attempts to
harmonise the text or to appropriate the variants to different sources, have not solved the is-
sue. Albright353 identifies Hobab as a Midianite and son-in-law of Moses, a smith by profes-
sion, belonging to the clan of Reuel. Obvious contradictions are evidently the result of scribal
errors and misunderstandings. Where possible, the origin of variations should be determined.
Texts should, furthermore, be analysed 'in the light of modern knowledge in order to reach a
reasonable solution of the present apparent dilemma'. 354
Childs355 denotes that the classic medieval Jewish commentators had a problem with the role
Jethro plays in the narrative. They found it unacceptable that a foreign priest offers a sacrifice
to the God of Israel, unless he was a proselyte. The description in Exodus, however, implies
that Jethro, who worshipped Yahweh, played the leading role to initiate the Israelites into the
cult of Yahweh. He furthermore mentions that the Kenite hypothesis experiences serious
problems, and that scholars – in their method of analysis – make no attempt to trace a history
of tradition, but rather piece together bits of information from the Hebrew Bible. Scholars
who explain the Jethro tradition as a cult aetiology have a more acceptable approach. Exodus
18 'retains many elements from the oldest level of the tradition'. 356 Jethro, a priest from the
foreign Midianite nation, takes the lead in a common cult meal. The confession of Jethro 357
forms the climax of this chapter. He is nowhere portrayed as an idolater who becomes a
Yahwist. Speculations by scholars that Yahweh was originally connected only to Sinai, and
not to the exodus tradition, remain highly hypothetical. According to the opinion of Childs, 358
one cannot speak of a Midianite layer of tradition, but rather of two points of focus in the
352
Albright 1968:38-42.
353
Albright 1968:42.
354
Albright 1968:38.
355
Childs 1974:322-326.
356
Childs 1974:323.
357
Exodus 18:11.
358
Childs 1974:326.
345
Midianite tradition, namely the revelation of the name, and the common cult. The linking of
these two matters in the narrative was done only much later in the history of tradition. At that
stage the connection between the exodus and Sinai had already been well established.
Abba359 indicates that there is no general agreement amongst biblical scholars regarding the
credibility of the Kenite hypothesis. The fact that Jethro officiated at the sacrifice which fol-
lowed the news of Yahweh's deliverance of Israel, does not necessarily suggest that the Israel-
ites adopted the religion of the Kenites, but it does imply that Moses gained from them
knowledge of the divine name Yahweh, which he later identified with "the God of their fa-
thers".
Houtman360 argues that, although the Kenite hypothesis 'has been expounded with a great deal
of vigour and imagination by Rowley', 361 and has been accepted by many scholars, 'this is not
owing to a lack of detractors'. An analysis of the relevant contents in Exodus leads to the
conclusion that no components included in the material makes a Midianite origin for Yahweh
probable. Jethro's confession362 is no proof that he was a Yahweh worshipper. According to
Houtman, 363 Exodus 18:12 'does not mention that Jethro made sacrifices … and he is not pre-
sented as the one who initiates Moses into the secrets of religion but as the one who counsels
Moses in legal matters'. If it should be illustrated that Yahweh was originally the god of the
Midianites, many questions arise, such as, was Yahweh a storm, mountain or fire deity.
Albertz364 denotes that there are indications that the God whom Moses introduced to the exo-
dus group came from the mountainous region south of Palestine, and that he was venerated
there before he became the Israelite God. Moses became acquainted with this god – Yahweh
– through the mediation of his Midianite father-in-law, Jethro. In the light of later enmity be-
tween the Israelites and Midianites, it is unlikely that – although there are disparities in the
traditions regarding Moses' father-in-law – an affiliation between Moses and the Midianites
would have been fabricated. Even though the biblical text does not explicitly refer to Jethro
as a priest of Yahweh, his invite to the Israelites to a sacrificial meal for Yahweh [Elohim], on
the Mountain of God, suggests that 'we may suppose that the Midianites or Kenites were
359
Abba 1961:320-321.
360
Houtman 1993:96-97.
361
British scholar who developed Budde's hypothesis. See Rowley earlier in this paragraph.
362
Exodus 18:11.
363
Houtman 1993:97.
364
Albertz 1994:51-55.
346
already worshippers of Yahweh before the Exodus group joined them'. 365 The god Yahweh,
who was a southern Palestinian mountain god, is therefore older than Israel. It is thus feasible
that Moses became acquainted with this god through the mediation of his Midianite – or
Kenite – father-in-law. Yahweh later became the god of liberation for the Moses group. In an
attempt to disguise any link between the Mountain of God and the Midianites – and thus any
pre-Israelite worship of Yahweh – it seems as if Moses arrived with his group at a completely
unknown place. This tendency – deliberately obscuring any earlier historical connections
with the Mountain of God – may be on account of "Sinai" previously being a mountain sanc-
tuary which was visited by nomadic tribes – particularly also Midianites – from this region.
West366 mentions that 'the Kenite hypothesis obviously has its strengths and should not be re-
jected out of hand'. A weakness of this theory is, however, that it fails to explain the firm and
ancient J-tradition, according to which Yahweh had been known by the Hebrew ancestors be-
fore the time of Moses. This hypothesis, likewise, does not explain how Moses could have
influenced the Hebrews to leave Egypt under guidance of a totally unfamiliar god. In the
view thereof that a number of tribal groups were not involved in the exodus, it is thus likely
that at least one of these groups worshipped Yahweh in the pre-Mosaic period. Scholars have
identified this element with the southern Palestinian tribe of Judah. It is, therefore, in the light
of the geographical proximity of the Kenites and Judahites, easy to envisage a Yahweh kin-
ship between these two groups.
Jagersma367 denotes that the different names of Moses' father-in-law indicates that more than
one version of the tradition is involved in the account of Moses in Midian. This strengthens
an argument – regarding Moses' positive contact with the Midianites – that an historical back-
ground could be presupposed, particularly considering a later hostile attitude towards the
Midianites. He is, however, unconvinced that Moses came in contact with Yahwism in Midi-
an, and it seems highly improbable that the origin of Yahwism should be searched for in Mid-
ian. Apart from one allusion in the Hebrew Bible, there is no information on the religion of
the Midianites and Kenites, and therefore the 'so-called Kenite hypothesis has a very weak
foundation'; there is also no certainty of any evidence 'for the divine name Yahweh outside
Israel before the time of Moses'. 368
365
Albertz 1994:52.
366
West 1981:159.
367
Jagersma 1994:39.
368
Jagersma 1994:39.
347
According to Hyatt,369 despite some logical arguments in favour of the Midianite-Kenite theo-
ry on the origin of Yahwism, scholars have raised their doubts concerning this hypothesis.
Although Jethro is called a priest of Midian, he is never indicated as a priest of Yahweh; nei-
ther does the Hebrew Bible directly denote Yahweh as the deity of the Midianites or Kenites.
Difficulties have also been encountered in the interpretation of Exodus 18 being a ceremony
in which the Israelites were prompted into the worship of Yahweh.
Mowinckel370 argues that 'it is certainly a fact that both Qenites and Midianites were wor-
shipers of Yahweh'. Some scholars interpret biblical sources as indicating that the Kenites
introduced Moses to the name and cult of Yahweh, while other scholars identify the Midian-
ites as the original worshippers of Yahweh. To substantiate his argument, Mowinckel 371 re-
fers to the aetiological legend that Cain was the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites, and that
every member of the clan wore the special protection mark of Yahweh. Mowinckel372 fur-
thermore mentions that 'in the legend in Exod. 18 373 we are explicitly told that this Jethro
[Moses' Midianite priestly father-in-law] instructed Moses in the ordinances and laws of
Yahweh [Elohim]'. He indicates that it is improbable that the Kenites and Midianites were the
only worshippers of Yahweh in the pre-Mosaic period. It is more feasible to conjecture that
all the North Sinaitic tribes were acquainted with the name of Yahweh, and took part in his
annual feast.374
As the Kenites are associated with Arad, and also linked to Moses and his in-laws who were
connected to the Midianite priesthood, Halpern375 deduces that the Kenites may well have of-
ficiated at the Israelite sanctuary at Arad, as well as at the high place near Kedesh 376 in Naph-
tali. He does, however, denote that there is no sure sign of an earlier altar at Arad, before the
shrine built by David or Solomon. Although later ostraca at Arad attest to the presence of
369
Hyatt 1980:78-79.
370
Mowinckel 1961:124.
371
Mowinckel 1961:124.
372
Mowinckel 1961:124.
373
Exodus 18:13-23.
374
Mowinckel 1961:124-125. During the annual feast for the god of Kadesh-Sinai, there probably would have
been a general peace among the Sinaitic tribes – a treuga Dei. The Amalekites were excluded from the treuga
Dei. They were in all likelihood newcomer intruders in the region, and were known as an "ill-reputed robber
tribe". They possibly represented the real camel-breeding Bedouins, with a lifestyle in opposition to the older
sheep-breeding and goat-breeding semi-nomads of that region. According to Exodus 17:16, Yahweh was in a
permanent war with Amalek (Mowinckel 1961:125).
375
Halpern 1992:19.
376
See discussion on the Kenite Heber in this paragraph (§ 5.3).
348
priestly Korahites, there is no indication that the Kenites played any role there. A Midianite-
Kenite cultic tradition may, however, have necessitated a tent-shrine. 377 Despite unsubstanti-
ated links between any Kenites related to Moses and the Arad temple, there are intimations
that the Kenites experienced a special relationship with Yahweh – particularly Yahweh's prom-
ise to their eponymous ancestor, Cain, for divine protection. Halpern 378 mentions that in an
unpublished paper, Cross379 suggests that an Israelite migration through the Edomite territory
inevitably would have meant contact with the Midianites. A further northward journey would
obviously have followed the route controlled by Midianite traders. Cross has identified a
strong strain in the Pentateuch condemning the Midianite traditions of the Mosaic Levites.
The P-source portrays the Midianites as Israel's archenemies. 380 Recollections of Midianite
domination in this region probably inspired this tradition. In Samuel 381 an association be-
tween the Kenites and Amalekites is implied. The question is, therefore, 'what fuses Midian
to the Kenites, and the Kenites to Moses?'382
Anderson383 is of the opinion that it is not impossible that the name Yahweh was known be-
fore the time of Moses. Although scholars attempt to illustrate the alleged occurrence of
forms of the name – such as Ya – elsewhere than in Israelite context, conclusive results have
not been attained. 384 Moses' acquaintance with the name Yahweh, as demonstrated by the
Kenite hypothesis, is more convincing. Advocates of this hypothesis stress that it was the
Midianite priest Jethro, rather than Moses, who officiated at a sacrifice to Yahweh. It was al-
so Jethro who advised Moses how he could ease the burden of his religious commission. The
supposition that the Kenites and later Israelites were bound by a common devotion to Yah-
weh, could explain the Kenites' alliance with Israel during an invasion of Canaan. 385
Smith386 speculates that 'some form of direct cultural contact may account for the adoption of
Yahweh in Judah'. Numerous scholars have indicated that the origin of Yahweh should be
sought in the southern territories of Seir, Edom, Teman and Sinai. The worship of Yahweh
377
A twelfth century BC "temple" – apparently a tent-shrine, similar to the biblical Tabernacle – has been un-
covered at Timnah (see § 2.14.1 on the Timnah Valley and a description of Timnah incorporated in a footnote in
§ 2.2). The temple was characterised by "Midianite" pottery; excavators also found a copper snake (Halpern
1992:20). See § 5.2 for a brief discussion of this discovery.
378
Halpern 1992:20-21.
379
Frank Moore Cross.
380
Numbers 31:1-12.
381
1 Samuel 15:5-6.
382
Halpern 1992:21.
383
Anderson 1962:409-410.
384
See discussions in this regard in § 4.2.
385
See discussion in this paragraph in connection with the account of Jael's killing of the Canaanite Sisera.
386
Smith 2001:145-146.
349
spread from the South to the central and northern highlands. This could be attributed to some
kind of contact, such as caravan traders, from the South. In the Song of Deborah387 trade is
mentioned as one of the problems leading to the conflict with the Canaanites. In Judges 5:14
a positive indication of kinship between the tribe of Ephraim and the southern tribe Amalek is
signified;388 this implies a cultural connection between the inhabitants of the central hill coun-
try associated with Ephraim and Amalek, a tribe from the South. It is possible that the traders
included Amalekites who later settled in the hill country. Similarly the southern Kenites
could have spread their influence to northern sites, such as Shiloh and Bethel.
De Moor389 mentions that, regarding the early history of Yahwism, the work of the School of
Albright tends to be rather fragmentary and is actually no more 'than collections of learned
essays on various relevant topics'. 390 He is of the opinion that Budde391 formulated the best
methodological point of departure. In his research Budde appropriated Ancient Near Eastern
documents to monitor his interpretations of the Israelite sources. De Moor,392 however, de-
notes that ancient traditions relating to Yahweh's "march from the South", contain no descrip-
tion of the exodus or the revelation at Sinai, and thus no link with Moses, therefore 'Moses
was not the founder of the Yahwistic religion. 393 … . This alone renders the so-called Kenite
hypothesis about the origin of Yahwism a lot less attractive'. 394 He furthermore indicates that
this hypothesis is generally supported by scholars due to the identification of the land of the
Shoso (Shasu) with biblical Seir in Edom. 395 The s‛rr in the Egyptian records is, however –
according to De Moor396 – erroneously identified with the Seir in the southern regions of Pal-
estine. The Egyptian name – s‛rr – is spelled differently than the biblical designation, and
should be sought much further north. As mentioned in paragraph 4.3.4, De Moor397 states
that, although the word "Shosu" – attested in Ugaritic – means "robber", this does not imply
that all Shosu [Shasu] were outlaws. As they resembled the habiru in many ways, the two
terms could refer to the same people. Impoverished vagrants of the fourteenth to thirteenth
centuries BC – called habiru or shasu – were, at times, employed as mercenaries. He
387
Judges 5.
388
The English translation (in the ESV) of Judges 5:14 reads: 'From Ephraim their root they marched down into
the valley.' The Masoretic Text reads: qlm[b ~XrX ~yrpa ynm; out of Ephraim they came whose root is in
Amalek.
389
De Moor 1997:5-7.
390
De Moor 1997:5.
391
See discussion of Budde's formulation earlier in this paragraph.
392
De Moor 1997:124-125, 310-311.
393
De Moor 1997:263.
394
De Moor 1997:310.
395
396
De Moor 1997:124-125, 310-311.
397
De Moor 1997:9, 115, 117.
350
concludes that present hypotheses have to suffice as long as no authentic documents from the
Late Bronze Age are available to attest to the origin of Yahwism.
Axelsson398 is of the opinion that it is reasonable to acknowledge that some link existed be-
tween the Shasu of Seir and the Israelite God Yahweh. The Shasu were present in a large area
of the southern parts of Palestine, and particularly in those regions associated with Yahweh.
Biblical poetic texts inform us of the geographical origin of Yahweh, which includes a refer-
ence to Seir. Several important southern clans composed the original tribe of Judah, which
included the Calebites and Kenites. In old genealogies the Calebites are connected with Seir;
a tradition which is more or less contemporary with the Egyptian texts which connect the
Shasu, Seir and Yhw. It is thus plausible that the Calebites, and related groups from Seir,
were identical with the Shasu. Axelsson399 thus concludes that it would have been these asso-
ciated groups from Seir, as well as the Kenites from an adjacent area, who brought the cult of
Yahweh with them when they migrated into the territory of Judah.
Thompson400 mentions that the reality of Aramaean migrations 401 by the end of the second
millennium BC has no historical support and is merely hypothetical. No evidence of Ara-
maeans in the South has yet been found, or that they were in any way related to the Shasu.
There is also no proof that the Shasu originated in the Arabian Peninsula or in Edom. He in-
dicates that the Egyptians often used the term "Shasu" in a generic sense which does not nec-
essarily refer to a specific ethnic group. He furthermore denotes that 'the relationship between
the historical group and the narrative individual is always vicarious and never equivocal. It is
wholly illegitimate, without contrary indication, to see this eponymous element as indicative
of a more serious historiographical intention'. 402 De Moor403 indicates that Thompson main-
tains that the exodus narrative is characteristic of a "pseudo-historical folktale". Thompson404
confirms his view that attempts to authenticate the Egyptian setting and trustworthiness of the
biblical narratives, have not met with much success. According to him, identification of the
398
Axelsson 1987:178-179.
399
Axelsson 1987:179.
400
Thompson 1977:159.
401
Thompson probably alludes to the migration of Abraham and his kin. Kemuel, son of Nahor the brother of
Abraham, was the 'father of Aram' – thus the Aramaeans (Gn 22:20-21). Millard (1992:345) mentions that bibli-
cal and Assyrian texts refer to people called Aramaeans who lived in some regions of Syria from the end of the
second millennium BC. The Shasu – who may be linked to the habiru – seemingly wandered over a wide re-
gion, and could therefore be sought both in the South and the North. Both these groups may be connected to the
Aramaeans and the Hebrews. Genesis 14:13a refers to 'Abram the Hebrew'. See also § 2.4 and § 2.5.
402
Thompson 1977:160.
403
De Moor 1997:208.
404
Thompson 1999:317-318.
351
habiru with the biblical Hebrews does not have any substance. He also refers to the confu-
sion of divine characters in Exodus. For example, in Exodus 3:1 Moses led his father-in-law's
flock to the Mountain of Elohim. In the very next verse a messenger of Yahweh appears. The
regularity and consistency of variance and fluidity of the divinities in the patterns of the early
pentateuchal narratives can hardly be seen as insignificant or accidental.
Polk405 denotes that there is a long history of cross-links between the Edomites and Benja-
minites. The Hebrew Bible indicates that the Benjaminites, the "mighty men", were highly
skilled warriors.406 Scholars connect both the Benjaminites and the habiru, mentioned in
documents from Mari, 407 to the early Hebrews. 408 Yet, a link between certain nomadic groups
in the first half of the second millennium BC and the name Benjamin – which could be either
"son of the north" or "son of the south" – is ambiguous. There are discrepancies between the
actual observance of the tribe Benjamin and the depiction of its appearance in Canaan. Clans
which formed this tribe might have emerged from outside Canaan. Joshua – an Ephraimite –
probably played a dominant role in the establishment of the Benjaminite clans in Cisjordan.
One could thus readily assume that there was a close association between the Ephraimite and
Benjaminite clans. In the Song of Deborah409 a clear link is indicated between these two
groups.410 Similarly, a possible connection between the Edomites and Benjaminites could
have led to the southern Edomites being instrumental in spreading the cult of Yahweh to the
North – the Ephraimites were in the North.
Lemche411 mentions that an early Benjaminite migration is unlikely as they are not mentioned
in any Late Bronze Age documents. It should, however, be kept in mind that Akkadian cunei-
form and Egyptian records referred to nomads as Sutu and Shasu, respectively. A study by a
social anthropologist 412 indicates that the inhabitants of Beitin – ancient Bethel in the territory
of Benjamin – consider themselves to be descendants of migrants from the Arabian Peninsula.
According to Lewy, 413 the tribe of the Benjaminites – probably known as the TUR-meš-ia-mi-
na – are mentioned in some texts from the royal archives of Mari. They were ruled by
405
Polk 1979:9.
406
1 Chronicles 12:1-2, 16-18, 29.
407
For more information, see § 2.4.
408
409
Judges 5:14.
410
Schunk 1992:671.
411
Lemche 1994:180-183.
412
Abdul Lutfiyya made a study of modern Beitin – ancient Bethel. Lutfiyya, A M 1966. Baytin. A Jordanian
village (Lemche 1994:182).
413
Lewy 1962:266. See also § 2.4.
352
chieftains and elders, and were renowned for their military ability. They possibly migrated
from Mesopotamia and Haran to Palestine. Lemche 414 furthermore denotes that, with regard
to the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua, there is no proof that the Benjaminites mi-
grated to Central Palestine – or even conquered the area – between 1800 BC and 1500 BC.
According to various ancient references to the Benjaminites, it thus seems that they moved
over a vast area of the Ancient Near East. They were evidently nomads, considered as Shasu.
A history of cross-links with the Edomites – as indicated by Polk 415 – could thus imply that
they were knowledgeable about the southern worship of Yahweh, and maybe instrumental in
the spreading thereof. My theory – as discussed in paragraph 4.2 – of possible Ya-related
cults in various areas of the Ancient Near East, before the emergence of the Israelite Yahwist
religion, may thus be tenable.
5.4 Moses figure and traditions

'No portion of the Bible is more complex and rigorously debated than the story of Moses.' 416
Beegle417 mentions that, as no extra-biblical records refer to Moses or the exodus, the historic-
ity thereof – as proclaimed by the Hebrew Bible – depends solely on the evaluation of the bib-
lical accounts in question. Early Jewish and Christian traditions believed that the Pentateuch
was an historical record composed by Moses himself. At the other end of the scale are schol-
ars who claim that Moses was only a legendary figure. In the biographical elements connect-
ed to the life of Moses we find a mixture of a 'few historical facts and a mass of legendary
matter'.418 Later editors of the Hebrew Bible attempted to compose a complete account of his
life from collections of disparate data. Moses features more prominently than most biblical
figures in art, music and literature. The portrayal of Moses with horns is well known. 419 Var-
ious participants and onlookers observe and interpret events differently, therefore it is likely
that two or more divergent traditions developed fairly soon after the exodus and Sinai
events.420 Frazer421 indicates that 'there seems to be no sufficient reason to doubt that in these
broad outlines the tradition concerning him [Moses] is correct' – he is much closer to the bor-
derline of history than the patriarchs. Van Seters422 denotes that scholars should take
414
Lemche 1994:182.
415
Polk 1979:9.
416
Beegle 1992:909.
417
Beegle 1992:909-910. See reference to, and footnote on Hecataeus, later in this paragraph.
418
Widengren 1969:7.
419
Houtman 1999:597.
420
Beegle 1992:910-911.
421
Frazer 1923:263.
422
Van Seters 1994:15.
353
cognisance thereof that the narrative reflects the author's own time to a great extent, and that
he addresses the 'ideological and theological concerns of his audience'.
The virtues of Moses form a crucial component of the tradition in the Hebrew Bible. His
ministry is represented as a model for all later leaders in Israel; he identified with the suffer-
ing of his people, in contrast to his act of violence in Egypt. He furthermore – according to
tradition – enjoyed a kind of intimate relationship with Yahweh 'and there has not arisen a
prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face … '. 423 This bond was
opposed to that of the prophets who had to depend on dreams and visions. The individual ta-
les, within the structure of the Moses saga, probably circulated amongst Israel's narrators.
Some scholars suggest that the "Moses chronicle" was written by David's scribes as a history
of the world, with the Kingdom of David at its centre. Although Moses is presented as the
hero, the construction could imply that David was the "New Moses". 424 It was only in later
tradition that Moses became the legendary ancestor of the Levitical priests. His historical role
is highly problematic, and his real importance remains an enigma. 425
Moses' name is an Egyptian hypocoristicon, 426 composed from the verb mśǐ – "bear", "give
birth to".427 The biblical writer presumably did not realise that his name was Egyptian, and
based the name on the Hebrew verb hXm – māšâ – "to draw out".428 The Egyptian name
Mose appears at times with the name of a god, such as Toth, in the form Tuthmosis. 429 Egyp-
tian names among Moses' descendants point to a link with Egypt. Miriam was probably an
historical figure, but not the sister of Moses. It seems that Aaron was only a legendary ances-
tor of the later Aaronite priesthood.430 Consistent with tradition, Moses was a Levite, and
thus a descendant of Jacob. 431 According to calculations by Finegan,432 Moses' birth might
have been in the year 1526 BC, thus the last year of reign of pharaoh Ahmose, who could thus
have been the ruler under whom the newborn Hebrew boys were under threat of death. 433 At
423
Deuteronomy 34:10.
424
Coats 1993:80, 91, 111, 113, 173, 191.
425
426
See § 2.3.
427
Widengren 1969:8.
428
Exodus 2:10. Hebrew hXm, Moses, and whtyXm, to pull out (of the water) (Holladay 1971:218).
429
Tuthmosis means "Toth is born" (Beegle 1992:911).
430
Widengren 1969:8.
431
Kohath, the son of Levi (Ex 6:16), and grandson of Jacob (Gn 29:34), was the person who "went down into
Egypt" (Gn 46:3, 7-8, 11). He lived hundred and thirty-three years (Ex 6:18). Kohath's son Amram (Ex 6:18),
Moses' father (Ex 6:20), lived hundred and thirty-seven years (Ex 6:20).
432
Finegan 1998:228-229, 231, 244. For more information on how the calculations were done, see the afore-
mentioned pages.
433
Exodus 1:22.
354
the age of forty Moses fled to Midian. 434 This act of Moses would then correlate with the
reign of Thutmose II.435 Taking alternative data into consideration, Finegan 436 estimates that
1330 BC was Moses' year of birth; that he died in the year 1210 BC, at the age of hundred and
twenty years.437 Houtman438 mentions that, according to Deuteronomy 34:5-6, Moses' death
and burial were 'under striking and mysterious circumstances'. There is also no indication
how he died. Various extra-biblical traditions describe Moses' death. 439 Although Moses'
name fits in with the circumstances of the Exodus narrative, it is not sufficient to identify Mo-
ses as an historical figure. 440
Death reports in the Hebrew Bible are characteristic in the narratives about illustrious
ancestors, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron and Joshua. Moses'
strength is highlighted at the end of his life; 'his eye was undimmed, and his vigor unabat-
ed'. 441 Although Moses' age was not as lengthy as that of figures in the primeval history, it
should be seen as a complete and full period. Despite the indication that he was still full of
strength, his speech in Deuteronomy 31 was that of an "old, feeble man". He is nevertheless
singled out as an authoritative leader that could never be equalled. The reference to Moses'
death as a punishment for his defiance at Meribah442 was obviously a justification for the
problem that a strong leader did not enter the Promised Land. 443
De Moor444 proposes that a certain Beya – whom he identifies with Moses – was the "real
ruler" of Egypt in the late Nineteenth Dynasty. 445 He suggests that Beya is a Semite name –
possibly Yahwistic. See also paragraph 4.3.4 in connection with Beya.
Amram, a biblical figure without a narrative, from the house of Levi, 446 is said to be Moses'
father.447 He appears only in late genealogical lists.448 His name in the genealogy of
434
Exodus 2:11-15; Acts 7:22-24, 29.
435
Reign of Thutmose II, 1493-1479 BC (Finegan 1998:228); according to Clayton (1994:100) he reigned 1518-
1504 BC.
436
Finegan 1998:244.
437
Deuteronomy 34:7.
438
Houtman 1999:595-596.
439
See Houtman (1999:595) for information on the different extra-biblical traditions.
440
Beegle 1999:911.
441
Deuteronomy 34:7.
442
Numbers 20:2-13.
443
Coats 1993:76-79, 81.
444
De Moor 1997:214-227.
445
Nineteenth Dynasty: 1293-1185 BC (Clayton 1994:98).
446
Exodus 2:1; Numbers 26:58-59.
447
Exodus 6:20.
448
1 Chronicles 6:1-3.
355
Exodus 6449 is probably the result of the combination of three or four genealogical sources.
By entering his name in this list, a distinct Levitical family was established that could fulfil a
specific function in the conquest of the land. 450
Jochebed, a Levite woman, was the wife of Amram and the mother of Aaron, Moses and
Miriam. She appears by name only in the genealogies of Exodus 6 and Numbers 26. 451 In the
latter genealogy she is described as the sister of Amram's father, 'the daughter of Levi, who
was born to Levi in Egypt'.452 The marriage between Amram and Jochebed violates the
priestly laws which prohibit such a relationship between a man and his father's sister. 453 Her
ancestral lineage, however, establishes a legitimacy of Aaron as priest in the family of Le-
vi.454 Rowley455 mentions that scholars at times suggest 'that the name of Moses' mother is
the Achilles' heel of the whole Kenite theory of Yahwism', as her name appears to be com-
pounded with the name Yahweh. This implies that she received a Ya-theophoric name before
the birth of Moses, and therefore it cannot be conjectured that Moses introduced the name of
Yahweh to the Israelites in Egypt. A counter argument notes that the name Jochebed is found
only in late sources, and there is also no certainty that it is in fact a Yahwistic theophoric
name. There even may have been intermarriage between some Israelite tribes and Yahweh-
worshipping Kenite tribes, who entered Palestine during the Amarna Age. 456 Kenite and Le-
vite families could thus have become associated, hence bringing a Kenite name into a Levite
home. Sarna457 denotes that the traditions concerning Moses' parents probably belong to an
early time, and 'were not reworked in the light of subsequent legislation'. He furthermore in-
dicates that no other Hebrew personal name with the component Yo – wy – has been attested
before the time of Moses. If, however, Jochebed did have a Yahwistic name, it could explain
Moses' flight to Jethro; Moses would thus have had some Kenite blood from his mother's side.
The name Yahweh could therefore have been known among the Israelites in Egypt, even
though Yahweh was not the God they worshipped.458
449
Exodus 6:16-18.
450
Wright 1992:217.
451
Exodus 6:20; Numbers 26:59.
452
Numbers 26:59.
453
Leviticus 18:12.
454
Burns 1992a:871.
455
Rowley 1950:159-160.
456
Pharaoh Amenhotep IV took on the name Akhenaten early in his reign (1350-1334 BC). He led in a new
period in the Egyptian history, known as the Amarna Age, and was also responsible for the so-called Akhenaten
monotheism. See § 2.5 and Excursus 4, at the end of § 8.8.1, for brief discussions on the Amarna Age and the
Akhenaten monotheism, respectively.
457
Sarna 1971:130.
458
Rowley 1950:160.
356
Berman and Carlebach459 indicate that, according to the Aggadah, 460 Jochebed was named so
because her face was like the "splendour of glory". She was born during the journey to Egypt
and was hundred and thirty years of age when she gave birth to Moses. Her youth returned to
her and all the wrinkles disappeared. 461 Her husband divorced her because of the command
that all male children be killed. After she remarried him she gave birth to Moses. Jochebed
is, furthermore, identified with the midwife Shiphrah, 462 because "the Israelites were fruitful
in her days", and with Jehudijah – Hodiah463 – the Jewess, because "she brought Jews into the
world". Jochebed survived all her children, and at the age of two hundred and fifty years she
was permitted to enter the promised land with Joshua.
Although the chronicle of the birth and raising of Moses is free from supernatural elements, it
is nonetheless more likely to belong to the realm of folklore than that of history. After his
birth Moses' mother hid him to avoid that her son be killed on account of the Egyptian de-
cree.464 She put him in 'a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. …
and placed it among the reeds by the river bank', where the pharaoh's daughter found him.
Moses later became the princess's son. 465 Similar tales have been recounted of founders of
dynasties, such as that of the exposure of the infant Sargon466 in a basket of bulrushes on the
river. This chronicle closely resembles the legend of Moses, but is, to all appearances, much
older than the Hebrew tradition. The authors of Exodus were probably acquainted with the
birth legend of Sargon, and modelled their narrative according to it. 467 The tale of Moses is
also reminiscent of an old custom to test the legitimacy of children by throwing the infant into
the water. There is no hint in the biblical narrative that Moses' legitimacy was doubtful, alt-
hough later Jewish law condemned marriages such as that of Amram and his paternal aunt, as
incestuous.468
Sargon's birth legend is recounted in an Akkadian document known as the Autobiography of

Sargon;469 the document probably dates from the early first millennium BC. It gives an
459
Berman & Carlebach 1971:130.
460
Aggadah or Haggadah, see footnote in § 4.1.
461
Genesis Rabbah 94:9 in the Haggadah (Berman & Carlebach 1971:130). An explanation of Genesis Rabbah
is incorporated in a footnote on Rabbi Haninah in § 3.2.1.
462
Exodus 1:15.
463
1 Chronicles 4:19.
464
Exodus 1:15-16.
465
Exodus 2:1-10.
466
For a description of Sargon, see footnote in § 2.4.
467
Frazer 1923:264-266.
468
Frazer 1923:268-269.
469
Arnold & Beyer 2002:75. See § 3.9 for a brief discussion of the birth legend.
357
explanation of the rapid rise of Sargon I of Akkad, the first great Semitic ruler of Mesopota-
mia. According to various legends, Sargon was born in the town of Azipiranu on the Euphra-
tes. He began his career as cup-bearer to the king of Kish, 470 and later became the ruler over a
vast region, including southern Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Mari, Ebla, Nineveh and the Mediter-
ranean. 471
Scholars have described Exodus 2:11-15 as a literary bridge between the birth story and
Moses in Midian. It does not reflect any special traditional material. The scene of Moses'
Egyptian childhood – with his knowledge of his Hebrew identity – and the oppression provide
a motive for Moses' flight and sojourn in a foreign country. The narrative has parallels in the
patriarchal stories.472 In an attempt to reconstruct the historical circumstances, the Yahwist
applied existing traditions, augmented by folkloristic features, such as the Egyptian oppres-
sion, to be comparable of Solomon's enslavement of non-Israelites to perform hard labour.473
On account of discontinuity in the biblical text, the reader is not informed on Moses' raising,
education and connections with the Egyptian and Hebrew communities. Scholars speculate
that the reason he fled to Midian was that, being with a nomadic tribe, increased his chances
to remain undetected. Moses' flight from Egypt has a parallel in the Egyptian legend of
Sinuhe.474 The latter was a high-ranking court official who, for political reasons fled through
Canaan to Syria. He married the daughter of a Syrian leader. Although there are many simi-
larities in the two chronicles, the legend of Sinuhe does not, however, give insight into the
origin and meaning of the Moses narrative. 475 Moses' flight from Egypt into the Wilderness is
significant therein that it sets the stage for the elucidation of the divine name to Moses. 476
Two important events are narrated in Exodus regarding Moses' exile in Midian. The first
event relates to his marriage to a daughter of a Midianite priest, and secondly to his
470
471
Levin 2002:359-360.
472
Compare with Genesis 24 and 29. The general scene in Midian (Exodus 2:11-15) is the same as that of the
patriarchal stories. The "hero" arrives in a foreign country, encounters shepherds and the daughter – or daugh-
ters – of a particular family at a well. He assists them, is invited into the family circle, and subsequently marries
one of the daughters (Van Seters 1994:31).
473
Van Seters 1994:30-33. See page 33-34 for a comparison by Van Seters of the various historical analogies.
474
Several Egyptian Middle and New Kingdom (Middle Kingdom 2040-1782 BC; New Kingdom 1570-1070
BC) hieratic papyri and limestone ostraca (see footnote in § 2.14.2) were used for the composition of The Story
of Sinuhe. It was evidently used as a set text in the Egyptian classrooms. Sinuhe was brought up in a palace; he
overhears a plot to kill the king and fearing that he might be implicated, flees into the desert. He is received well
in Syria and is later recalled to Egypt, where he receives honours and a tomb (Clayton 1994:82). The tale is a
literary masterpiece that became a classic example of prose in ancient Egypt (Arnold & Beyer 2002:76). "Hier-
atic" – a cursive form of hieroglyphics (Deist 1990:114).
475
Provan et al 2003:127.
476
Janzen 1979:233.
358
commission to lead his people out of Egypt. Coats477 is of the opinion that 'the kernel of tra-
dition about Moses in Midian' lies in the marriage story. His flight to Midian and the mar-
riage serves as a connection between his birth and subsequent adoption-story, and the account
of Moses at the Mountain of God receiving his commission. 478 An older tradition about mar-
riage lies behind the plot of the narrative. In Genesis 29 – according to the marriage tradition
– the relationship between the bridegroom and his father-in-law is emphasised, and not the
relationship between the groom and his bride. In Exodus 18:1-7 Moses' father-in-law brings
Moses' wife and children to meet him in the Wilderness, 'but the focal point of this reunion is
between Moses and his father-in-law', 479 while his wife and children are practically ignored.
Exodus 18 furthermore links the Mountain of God and Jethro – Moses' father-in-law. The
traditions about the exodus, which were originally unrelated to the name of Yahweh, are thus
connected to the traditions about a Midianite cult of Yahweh. It therefore seems that the goal
of the marriage tradition is to explain the origin of the relationship between Moses and his
father-in-law that subsequently led to the initiation of Moses into the cult of Yahweh.480
The origin of Moses' wife Zipporah is laden with uncertainty. The oldest tradition-layer men-
tions that he had a non-Israelite wife.481 In Exodus 2:16-22 she is referred to as Zipporah, 'the
daughter of the Midianite priest Reuel'. Zipporah is mentioned only briefly when she saves
her husband – Moses – in a strange and dangerous situation. She wards off a divine attack by
performing a particular ritual: she cuts off her son's foreskin, touched Moses' "feet" – proba-
bly a euphemism for his genitals – with it and said 'Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to
me'. 482 Scholars have proposed various solutions to solve this text which is loaded with diffi-
culties, such as Zipporah's adoption of a male role to perform the circumcision of her son.
After their meeting with Moses, Zipporah and her sons disappear from the narrative,483 indi-
cating that the significant family consists of Moses and Jethro, his father-in-law.484 The
Kenites are thus related to Moses through his Kenite wife, and consequently to the Levite
tribe to which Moses belonged.485 Robertson Smith486 mentions that, according to Exodus
12:43-49 – which explains the institution of the Passover – all male Israelites were to be
477
Coats 1993:22-24.
478
Exodus 3:1-4:18.
479
Coats 1993:25.
480
Coats 1993:25, 28, 30.
481
Widengren 1969:8.
482
Exodus 4:24-26.
483
Exodus 18:1-9.
484
Burns 1992b:1105.
485
Nolan 1982:40.
486
Robertson Smith 1969:609-610.
359
circumcised before they could keep the Passover. Uncircumcised, they would be regarded as
polluting Yahweh's land.487 Both the circumcision and Passover thus denote a new period in
Israel's history. The rite of circumcision evidently had not been performed on Moses. The
ritual carried out by Zipporah – touching Moses' genitals with her son's foreskin – presumably
symbolised an act of circumcising Moses.
According to Numbers 12:1, 'Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite
woman whom he had married, … '. "Cush" was the term used by the ancient Israelites to re-
fer to the region south of Egypt, later called Ethiopia by the Greeks and Romans. The territo-
ry comprised more or less of the area between the first and sixth cataracts of the Nile. The
borders, however, fluctuated throughout the centuries. The name "Ethiopians" is derived
from Greek meaning "burnt face", thus obviously referring to black people. It is, therefore,
possible that Moses' Cushite wife was a black woman. The text in Numbers provides no
clarity on the negativity of Miriam and Aaron against the Cushite woman. The foreign ances-
try of the woman is emphasised, but she remains anonymous. Some scholars argue that Cush-
ite does not refer to the country Cush in Africa, but should be identified with "Cushan" or
"Midian" of Habakkuk 3:7; the implication thus being that Miriam and Aaron refer to Moses'
Midianite wife Zipporah. The reference to Cushan, which is linked in Habakkuk 3:7 to Midi-
an is, however, questionable. Overwhelming biblical citations seem to indicate that "Cushite"
refers to the region Cush, south of Egypt.488 Cush is the eponymous ancestor of the Cushites,
but is also related to Nimrod,489 and has therefore been identified as the ancestor of a Mesopo-
tamian group, the Kassites, who ruled in Babylonia until the twelfth century BC. 490
Moses, as the principal character in the exodus tradition and ensuing sojourn of the Israelites
in the Wilderness, played a crucial role in these traditions, which advance that the Israelites
were introduced to Yahweh by the mediation of Moses. The revelation to Moses of Yahweh's
proper name – as in Exodus 3:14 – and the subsequent indication – as in Exodus 6:3 – that
Yahweh did not make himself known by that name to the patriarchal fathers, is significant for
our perception of the Yahwist religion of the Israelites. 491 A literary analysis of Exodus 3 and
4 – describing the encounter between Yahweh and Moses, and the following "call" of Moses –
487
During the Passover they ate of the produce of the land (Robertson Smith 1969:609).
488
Lokel 2006:538-539, 541.
489
Genesis 10:8.
490
Johnson 1992:1219.
491
According to Exodus 6:3 Yahweh appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as ydX la – El Shadday – and not
as hwhy. The question of the implications in terms of the covenant made by Yahweh with Abram (Gn 12:1-3)
and Yahweh's revelation in Exodus 6:3 pertains to a theological debate, and cannot be researched within the
scope of this thesis.
360
is fundamental to understand the J-narrator in the Moses tradition, and the connection of this
tradition to that of the patriarchs preceding it. This matter, concerning the J and E sources,492
continues to be debated.493 Seitz494 indicates that no two other passages – than Exodus 3:1-
4:17 and 6:2-9 – proved to be more important for the source-critical method. A significant
problem in these passages thus is the claim in Exodus 6:3 that God had not previously been
known by his proper name Yahweh. Moses was therefore – according to this text – the first
person to whom God revealed his proper name. Hence, this Name was unknown to the patri-
archal ancestors. The appearance of the proper name Yahweh in Genesis is consequently an
anachronism, recognised as such by the ancient reader, who drew neither historical nor theo-
logical conclusions. God reveals the divine name to Moses, hyha rXa hyha.495 However,
Mowinckel496 points out that a person who knew the deeper meaning of the name of a deity,
"knew" the deity in question. According to Exodus 3:14-15, it was not the name of God –
Yahweh – which was revealed to Moses, but the deeper meaning of this name. The J-tradition
thus maintains that the interpretation of the name was hidden in the name itself. Therefore,
Exodus 3 'does not support the theory that the name of Yahweh was not known to the Israel-
ites before Moses'.497 See chapter 4 – paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 – for a discussion of the divine
name, as disclosed to Moses.
The advent of Yahweh confronting Moses from a burning bush498 was constructed in the con-
text of Midianite traditions, although a Midianite setting for this theophany tradition is actual-
ly irrelevant. Exodus 3:1 describes Moses tending the flocks of his father-in-law, a Midianite
priest. After Yahweh's commission to Moses, he returns to his father-in-law seeking permis-
sion to leave. Moses is therefore also tied into the larger context of the Midianite priest fa-
ther-in-law traditions.499 A later theophany of Yahweh is described in Exodus 19 when
'Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God500 … there were thunders and light-
nings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast … Mount Sinai was
wrapped in smoke because the LORD [Yahweh] had descended on it in fire … the whole
mountain trembled greatly'. 501 Earthquakes were associated with theophany, therefore the
492
See § 8.2 in connection with the pentateuchal sources.
493
Van Seters 1994:35-36.
494
Seitz 1999:145, 147, 150.
495
Exodus 3:14.
496
Mowinckel 1961:126.
497
Mowinckel 1961:126.
498
Exodus 3:1-6.
499
Coats 1993:27.
500
Exodus 19:17.
501
Exodus 19:16, 18.
361
earthquake mentioned in Amos 1:1 is significant for theological as well as seismological rea-
sons. This particular earthquake has been attested in the archaeological record. Solid evi-
dence has been established, inter alia, at Hazor, as well as at Jerusalem where a landslide – on
account of the earthquake – involved a part of the Mount of Olives and the Kidron Valley. In
this particular instance 'the importance of Amos's authentication for the history of Israelite
prophecy cannot be overstated'.502
Rowley503 denotes that there is no evidence that polytheism in Israel developed into monothe-
ism by natural evolution. There is also no evidence that Moses practised monotheism in the
sense that he denied the existence of more than one god, or that he was a polytheist therein
that he worshipped many gods. It may, however, be stated that Moses planted the seed of
monotheism. Scholars, such as Albright 504 – who advanced the thesis – identify Moses as the
founder of the monotheistic Israelite religion. There are also scholars who support a theory of
a Mosaic revolution during the thirteenth century BC. 505 Dever506 mentions that there are no
external witnesses to Moses,507 and that 'the notion of a revolutionary new religion that
emerged complete overnight and never required or underwent revolutionary development is
… unconvincing'. He endeavours to reconcile a probably "mythical-Moses" of the biblical
texts with a possible historical "Moses-like figure".
Davies508 refers to the exodus as 'one of a number of alternative immigration stories', without
historical basis or explanation. He furthermore indicates that many Judeans most likely went
to Egypt at the end of the sixth century BC – some as garrison troops. A number of these
Semitic servicemen probably returned later from Egypt to settle in Yehud – maybe even under
a leader with the Egyptian name Moses. A fourth century BC Egyptian chronicle – preserved
in Hecataeus509 – mentions that the Jewish priesthood was established by an Egyptian, by the
502
Freedman & Welch 1994:188-189, 196.
503
Rowley 1963:42-44.
504
Albright, W F 1957. From Stone Age to Christianity: monotheism and the historic process. 2nd ed. New
York: Doubleday.
505
Human 1999:495.
506
Dever 2003:235.
507
See a later footnote in this paragraph, concerning the historian Hecataeus, and his documented reference to
Moses.
508
Davies 1992:119-120. Philip Davies is recognised as one of the minimalists (see § 8.9) who claim, inter alia,
that the Hebrew Bible was composed during the Persian or Hellenistic periods.
509
Hecataeus of Abdera was a Hellenistic ethnographic historian functioning more or less during 300 BC, at the
time of Ptolemy I Soter. He treats different features of Jewish history and culture, particularly also emigration
from Egypt and some aspects of the Mosaic law. This is the first documented reference to Moses in pagan litera-
ture (Holladay 1992:108). Ptolemy I Soter – Meryanum Setepenre – acted as satrap in Egypt for the period 305-
282 BC (Clayton 1994:208). A satrap was a holder of provincial governorship (Oxford University Press
1964b:788).
362
name of Moses, who founded Jerusalem. There is thus the likelihood of people emigrating
from Egypt to Palestine, identifying with the dominant culture of Yehud. They may have
contributed to this culture their own claim grounded on an escape from Egypt. Speiser 510
mentions that the spiritual history of the political entity Israel was bound to operate in the
shadow of the dominating figure of Moses.
Whereas it remains problematic to recognise any historical substance as such, in the patriar-
chal narratives, the exodus chronicle – on the other hand – points to signs of a monarchical or
later composition. Circumstantial evidence in the account of the exodus has been debated by
scholars; some who reject its value for historical purposes, while other scholars accept some
sort of departure from Egypt by certain antecedents of the Israelites. The names of, inter alia,
Moses, Aaron and Phinehas are not Hebrew, but Egyptian, thus suggesting an Egyptian back-
ground for at least some Israelites. It is unlikely that an ancient group would have fabricated
a tradition presenting its ancestors as slaves. Some of the archaic poems in the Hebrew Bible
recall the exodus,511 thereby intimating its historical value. It is, however, significant that
both the divine names Yahweh and Elohim are presented in these poems to indicate the God
responsible for their liberation from Egypt.512 Dijkstra513 is of the opinion that one cannot
'deny the existence of a group of Hebrews or Levites in the Egyptian Delta or an Exodus ex-
perience witnessed in biblical tradition'. The Moses group probably settled at first in
Transjordan, and some of them later moved to the central hill country of Israel and Judah.
'Through the ages, the sin of Moses, as described in Num 20:1-13, has been regarded as one
of the Gordian knots514 of the Bible.'515 According to this text, Moses sinned therein that he
did not believe Yahweh; the punishment being that he would not lead the Israelites into the
"promised land".516 Medieval Jewish commentators gave different explanations of the bibli-
cal account.517 Some modern scholars are of the opinion that the "sin of Moses" has been ob-
scured deliberately in order not to detract from the glory of Moses. The possibility exists that
510
Speiser 1964:L.
511
Exodus 15; Numbers 23-24.
512
Smith 2004:19-20.
513
Dijkstra 2001a:110.
514
Gordian knot: a difficult, or impossible, task or problem. The expression originated from a legend in which
king Gordius tied a very complicated knot and said that whoever undid it would become the ruler of Asia. It was
Alexander the Great who cut through the knot with his sword (Wehmeier 2005:644).
515
Milgrom 1983:251.
516
Numbers 20:12.
517
Milgrom (1983:251-252) mentions that explanations of the biblical account by Jewish commentators can be
summarised as follows: Moses' action of striking the rock – twice – instead of speaking to it; his character which
showed a blazing temper, cowardice and callousness; his words which seemingly indicated that he doubted Yah-
weh.
363
the episodes – related in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 – of Moses' drawing water from the rock
are variants of the same tradition. It seems that the "sin of Moses" possibly lies therein that he
ascribed miraculous powers to himself and Aaron, defying Yahweh and denying the essence
of Yahweh's existence. Yahweh commanded Moses to 'tell the rock before their [Israelites]
eyes to yield its water',518 but Moses struck the rock twice with his staff. The magical rite in
Egypt always comprised certain words that had to be recited, as well as certain actions that
had to be performed. Mesopotamian magic also combined incantation and gesticulation.
Moses performs his miracles in silence without reciting any formula. The pentateuchal narra-
tors thus distinguish Moses from his Egyptian counterparts, as they foresaw that "his speaking
to the rock" could have been perceived by the assembled people as an incantation by a magi-
cian. The narrators thus 'constrained (Moses) to speechlessness during the performance of a
miracle, a practice which contrasted sharply – deliberately so – with the wonder-workers of
other nations'.519
Numbers 21:4-9 records the incident when Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the Israelites.
On instruction of Yahweh, Moses made a bronze serpent, set it on a pole so that anyone, who
was bitten by a serpent and looked at the bronze serpent, would live. This image was there-
fore created to cure snakebites. Yahweh is thus 'the deity responsible for healing through the
symbolic instrument of the bronze snake'. 520 During his religious reforms, king Hezekiah521
'broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of
Israel had made offerings to it'.522 The Masoretic Text states that the name of the object was
– !tXxn, which is clearly a wordplay on the words bronze or copper, – tXxn
– and serpent, – Xxn.523 Scholars indicate that this object represented a deity which
clearly formed part of the Judean pantheon in Jerusalem, and was probably the deity of heal-
ing – related to the Greek god Asclepios,524 which was represented by a snake symbol. Ser-
pent figures made from copper or bronze have been found at various sites in the Ancient Near
East.525 Knight526 mentions that the serpent was also the symbol of Eshmun, the Canaanite
god of healing. Coats527 deliberates that there was some connection between this ,
518
Numbers 20:8.
519
Milgrom 1983:251-252, 255, 258-261, 264.
520
Hendel 1999:746.
521
Hezekiah reigned in Judah 715-686 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
522
2 Kings 18:4.
523
Holladay 1971:235.
524
See also footnote in § 3.3 on "Serpent symbolism".
525
Handy 1992:1117.
526
Knight 1981:34.
527
Coats 1993:139.
364
the rod in Moses' hand that turned into a serpent – – in Egypt, and the who chal-
lenged Eve in the garden. The important aspect is, however, that – in the incident described
in Numbers – the serpent functions as an instrument of healing. It is obvious that Moses
would have been able to make the bronze serpent as he probably learned the art of copper
moulding from the Kenites.
Characteristics involving style, genre, lexical stock and a distinctive theological tendency,
clearly indicate a variety of authorial voices in the books of Genesis and Exodus. The history
concerning the divine name and the calling of Moses, reports exceptionally complex events.
Seitz,528 therefore, supports a different understanding of the character of the levels of tradition
and their relationship to one another.
5.5 Evaluation of the Kenite hypothesis

Scholars have disparate views regarding the Kenite hypothesis. 529 A number of aspects con-
cerning this hypothesis are considered in a positive light by scholars, while particular facets
thereof are evaluated negatively.
Van der Toorn530 refers to the absence of the name Yahweh in West Semitic epigraphy, as
well as the biblical topographical link with the South, which positively connects Yahweh with
the southern regions where the Kenites and Midianites dwelt. Moses became acquainted with
the god Yahweh through his Kenite association. The Kenites were related to the Midianites,
and were probably a clan of this tribe. According to Albertz, 531 the God whom Moses intro-
duced to the exodus group was venerated in the mountainous areas south of Palestine before
he became the God of Israel. He also mentions that the Hebrew Bible deliberately obscures
any earlier historical connections with Sinai – the Mountain of God, depicted in the exodus
tradition – as it was probably previously a mountain sanctuary visited by nomadic groups
from this region, such as the Midianites and Kenites. Although this suggestion by Albertz is
appealing, it does seem – according to the Hebrew Bible – that the "holy mountain", Mount
Sinai (or Horeb), was situated outside the Midianite territory; 532 Exodus 18:27 is rather ex-
plicit in this regard: 'Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he [the father-in-law, a Mid-
ianite/Kenite] went away to his own country'. The question is, therefore, whether this
528
Seitz 1999:160-161.
529
See § 5.3 for a brief discussion of a number of these views.
530
531
Albertz 1994:51-55.
532
Exodus 3:1; 4:27; 18:5.
365
tribe would have travelled some distance into the Wilderness to worship their god. On the
other hand, there is no reason why such a sanctuary could not have existed and been frequent-
ed by nomadic groups who roamed over large areas.
West533 denotes that the southern Palestinian tribe of Judah has been identified as one of the
tribal groups who were not involved in the exodus. In the light of the geographical proximity
of the Kenites and Judahites, a Yahweh kinship between these two groups could thus easily be
envisaged. Smith534 agrees that such a cultural contact could account for the adoption of
Yahweh in Judah. The spreading of the cult of Yahweh from the South to the central and
northern highlands could be attributed to contact with caravan traders – particularly Midian-
ites – in these regions. Some Kenite families presumably also settled in the northern regions;
Heber, the Kenite, is an example of such a migration.535
Despite Van der Toorn's536 acknowledgement of Yahweh's topographical link with the South,
and the positive evaluation of the Kenites in the Hebrew Bible, which renders the Kenite hy-
pothesis in a positive light, he mentions that a weakness of this theory is its disregard for the
"Canaanite" origins of Israel. According to the classic formulation of the hypothesis, the Isra-
elites became Yahwists under influence of Moses during their sojourn in the Wilderness. Van
der Toorn537 points out that, at that stage, the majority of Israelites were already established in
Palestine. He does, however, agree that the Kenites probably introduced the Israelites to the
worship of Yahweh, but then, within the borders of Palestine. He furthermore indicates that,
should the Kenite hypothesis be maintained, then only in a modified form. With regard to
Van der Toorn's view, I wish to point out that, according to my assessment, Kenite influence
– via Moses – on the Israelite tribes of the exodus, need not be in conflict with any possible
effect the Kenites had on the religion or cult of the Israelite tribes who were settled in the cen-
tral and northern areas of Palestine. It has been established archaeologically, as well as in
biblical references, that the Kenites were associated with Arad and the Negeb in the South,
the region where Moses became acquainted with them. At the same time they were nomadic,
and as travelling metal traders could have spread their Yahwistic belief and cult over a wide
region from south to north – thereby making contact with those Israelites who had Canaanite
origins.
533
West 1981:159.
534
Smith 2001:145-146.
535
Judges 4:11. See also § 5.3.
536
537
366
Egyptian records that link Yhw [Yahu] to the "land of the Shasu", also connect this Bedouin
group to Seir and Edom.538 Scholars generally identify this "land of the Shasu" with biblical
Seir in Edom. In the light of ancient traditions relating to Yahweh's "march" from the south-
ern regions – particularly also from Edom and Seir – it could thus be deduced that Yahu
[Yahweh] was known by the Shasu, and probably venerated by them. Similarly, scholars rec-
ognise the Kenites as being related to the Edomites. De Moor,539 however, disagrees that the
s‛rr in the Egyptian records could be identified with the Seir in the southern regions of Pales-
tine, but should be sought much further north. Axelsson, 540 on the other hand, acknowledges
a reasonable probability that a link existed between the Shasu of Seir and the Israelite [or
Kenite] God Yahweh. He furthermore denotes that related groups from Seir – such as the
Kenites and Calebites – could be associated with the Shasu. These groups could thus have
brought the cult of Yahweh with them when they migrated into the territory of Judah. Ac-
cording to Thompson,541 there is no evidence that the Shasu originated in the Arabian Penin-
sula, or in Edom. He also indicates that the Egyptians often used the term "Shasu" in a gener-
ic sense, thereby not referring to a specific ethnic group. Van der Toorn, 542 however, is of the
opinion that it could tentatively be concluded that the "Shasu Bedouins of Yahu" should be
sought in the regions of Edom and Midian.
In accordance with information from Egyptian records,543 I agree with scholars – such as Van
der Toorn544 – that the Shasu should be identified as a Bedouin group who could be linked to
the territory of Edom and adjacent Seir. As biblical records 545 mention that Yahweh came
forth from the southern regions – particularly also mentioning Edom and Seir – it therefore
seems tenable that the Shasu could have venerated Yahweh in these vicinities. It, furthermore,
appears that different clans were associated with the Shasu and could have been integrated
with them; these may include southern marginal groups.
Childs546 indicates that early Jewish commentators found it unacceptable that a foreign
Midianite priest – Jethro – offered a sacrifice to the God of Israel. Jethro played a leading
role in a common cult meal; he is nowhere portrayed as an idolater who became a Yahwist.
538
539
De Moor 1997:124-125, 310-311.
540
Axelsson 1987:178-179.
541
Thompson 1977:159-160.
542
543
See discussions on and reference to the relevant Egyptian records in § 2.6 and § 4.3.4.
544
545
See § 5.3 for reference to these records
546
Childs 1974:322-326.
367
According to Abba, 547 the fact that Jethro – Moses' father-in-law and a Midianite priest – offi-
ciated at the sacrifice which followed the news of Yahweh's deliverance of Israel, does not
necessarily imply that the Israelites adopted the religion of the Kenites. Houtman 548 argues
that Jethro's confession that 'the LORD [Yahweh] is greater than all gods',549 is no proof that
he was a Yahweh worshipper. Albertz,550 however, mentions that, in the light of later enmity
between the Israelites and Midianites, it is unlikely that a tradition would have been fabricated
that Moses became acquainted with Yahweh through the mediation of his Midianite priestly
father-in-law. Jagersma551 agrees that the later hostile attitude towards the Midianites – as
portrayed in the Hebrew Bible – strengthens the argument that an historical background, re-
garding Moses' positive contact with the Midianites, could be presupposed. He is, neverthe-
less, not convinced that Moses came in contact with Yahwism in Midian, or that the origin of
Yahwism should be searched for in Midian. He rather is of the opinion that the 'so-called
Kenite hypothesis has a very weak foundation'. 552 Hyatt553 denotes that Jethro was never in-
dicated as a priest of Yahweh or that Yahweh was signified as the deity of the Midianites or
Kenites. He mentions that, despite logical arguments in favour of the Kenite hypothesis on
the origin of Yahwism, scholars have raised their doubts concerning this theory.
Mowinckel, 554 on the other hand, argues that 'it is certainly a fact that both Qenites and
Midianites were worshipers of Yahweh'. To substantiate his argument he refers to the
aetiological legend that Cain was the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites, and that every
member of this clan wore the special protection mark of Yahweh.
Scholars – such as Albright 555 – point out the confusion that exists regarding Moses' father-in-
law's three different names, namely Jethro, Reuel and Hobab; he is also described as a Midia-
nite and a Kenite. Early Israelite oral traditions – as reflected in the Hebrew Bible – are,
however, often contradictory and generally confusing. Several explanations have been pro-
posed by scholars regarding this inconsistency. To my mind, it should also be taken into con-
sideration that the Kenites were connected to the Midianites, probably being a clan of the lat-
ter, and that Reuel – the name of an Edomite tribe – may be an indication that Jethro was
547
Abba 1961:320-321.
548
Houtman 1993:97.
549
Exodus 18:11.
550
Albertz 1994:51-55.
551
Jagersma 1994:39.
552
Jagersma 1994:39.
553
Hyatt 1980:78-79.
554
Mowinckel 1961:124.
555
368
linked to this tribe. Likewise, Hobab was the 'eponymous ancestor of a Kenite clan'. 556 It is
thus clear that an intermingling of tribes and clans eventually would have led to divergent tra-
ditions. A blend of J and E 557 documents furthermore contributed to various traditions being
recorded. Albright 558 denotes that, where possible, the origin of variations should be deter-
mined. As I have indicated earlier in paragraph 5.3, scholars have proposed several explana-
tions for the confusion in names. Although Albright 559 does not agree with "superficial at-
tempts to solve these discrepancies," different traditions or sources might very well have been
appropriated during the redactional process.
Thompson560 refers to the inconsistency of the appearance of divine characters in Exodus; in

verses succeeding one another, the names Yahweh and Elohim occur. He is of the opinion
that the regularity and consistency of variance and fluidity of the divinities in the patterns of
the early pentateuchal narratives can hardly be seen as insignificant or accidental. With re-
gard to Thompson's comment, the different pentateuchal documents 561 applied in the narra-
tives should be taken into consideration.
McNutt562 mentions that, although the Hebrew Bible portrays the Kenites as loyal supporters
of the Israelites and Yahwism, they were never fully incorporated into the Israelite society. It
was also predicted that they would eventually disappear. Halpern 563 denotes that there are,
however, indications that the Kenites experienced a special relationship with Yahweh – par-
ticularly with regard to his promise to their eponymous ancestor – Cain – for divine protec-
tion.564
Shortcomings of this hypothesis are: the different names and titles of Moses' father-in-law;
the prediction in Numbers 24 565 that the Kenites would disappear – later Israelite traditions do
not refer to the Kenites; Jethro was a Midianite priest, but it is nowhere stated that he was a
priest of Yahweh; Mount Sinai – the Mountain of Yahweh/Elohim – was outside the Midianite
territory; the Egyptian and biblical s‛rr could possibly refer to different areas; uncertainty
556
Knauf 1992b:693.
557
See § 8.2 on the pentateuchal sources.
558
Albright 1968:38.
559
560
Thompson 1999:317-318.
561
See § 8.2.
562
McNutt 1993:407.
563
Halpern 1992:19.
564
See also discussions in this regard in § 5.2.
565
Numbers 24:21-22.
369
concerning Jethro's role; the ancient traditions relating to Yahweh's appearance from the South
have no reference to the exodus or the revelation at Sinai; the hypothesis' inability to explain
the firm ancient tradition in Genesis concerning Yahweh; the disregard of the Canaanite origin
of the Israelites; apart from one allusion in the Hebrew Bible, there is no information availa-
ble on the religion of the Kenites.
In their support for the Kenite hypothesis, some scholars make particular assumptions, which
are not necessarily correct. Exodus 18:12 mentions that Jethro 'brought a burnt offering and
sacrifices to God [Elohim]'. Scholars, such as Albertz,566 indicate that Jethro invited the 'Isra-
elites to a sacrificial meal for Yahweh'. He states furthermore, 'then we may suppose that the
Midianites or Kenites were already worshippers of Yahweh before the Exodus group joined
them'. With reference to Jethro's counselling of Moses in legal matters, Mowinckel567 denotes
that, 'in the legend in Exodus 18 we are explicitly told that this Jethro instructed Moses in the
ordinances and laws of Yahweh'; Exodus 18:15-20 refers consistently to Elohim. Mowinck-
el568 also argues that every member of the Kenite clan wore the special protection mark of
Yahweh. According to Genesis 4:15, Yahweh 'put a mark on Cain'; there is, however, no ref-
erence to his descendants. Although the Book of Exodus – in particular – consists of a mix-
ture of pentateuchal traditions, that complicates the analysis of these traditions, scholars
should guard against the arbitrary reading of Yahweh into the text, or the making of unsub-
stantiated deductions.
In accordance with theories proposed by Budde and other scholars – taking particular discrep-
ancies and shortcomings into account – I evaluate the Kenite hypothesis, in general, positive-
ly.
Summarily I therefore advance – basically in agreement with the classic formulation of the
Kenite hypothesis – that a Moses-type figure gained knowledge about, and was initiated into,
Yahweh-worship through his Kenite/Midianite priestly father-in-law Jethro. The Hebrew Bi-
ble professes that Moses spent some time with Jethro, taking his daughter in marriage. Yah-
weh confronts Moses, revealing the meaning of his proper Name, and declaring that Moses'
ancestors did not know him by this Name. After Moses' return from Egypt with the "escap-
ees", Jethro is portrayed positively in Exodus 18, when bringing a sacrifice and stating that
566
Albertz 1994:51-52.
567
Mowinckel 1961:124.
568
Mowinckel 1961:124.
370
Yahweh is greater than all the gods. It seems – as Budde denotes – that the tradition in Exo-
dus implies that Jethro worshipped Yahweh. These particular "Israelite" tribes thus became
acquainted with the cult of Yahweh through Moses, who equated Yahweh with the God of
their fathers. The southern Palestinian tribe of Judah became knowledgeable about Yahweh
through cultural contact with the Kenites, as well as through later contact with the "escapees"
who settled in Judah. The northern tribes – particularly also those with Canaanite origins be-
came acquainted with Yahweh through contact with Kenite and Midianite metal traders and
travellers, as well as Kenite and other southern marginal groups who settled in the North.
A strong point of this classic hypothesis is the recurring biblical tradition of Yahweh's topo-
graphical link with the South. As denoted in Deuteronomy 33:2, Judges 5:4, Psalm 68:8 and
Habakkuk 3:3, Yahweh came from Sinai, Seir, Mount Paran, Edom and Teman. Zechariah
9:14 also refers to Yahweh's march from the South – basically portrayed as a Storm God. Ex-
tra-biblical Egyptian records that link Yhw to the "Land of the Shasu", and the Shasu to Edom
and Seir, corroborate Yahweh's – Yhw's – association with, at least, Seir and Edom.
I therefore conclude that – unless, or until, data emerge that contradict theories regarding
Yahweh's emergence from the South, and thus also the Kenite hypothesis – I am in agreement
with the thesis that the origin of Yahweh should be sought in the southern territories, namely
in the regions of Seir and Edom, and among the Kenites, Midianites, Edomites and related
marginal groups.
5.6 Adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh

Van der Toorn569 mentions that some scholars argue that, despite many attributes of Yahweh
which are normally ascribed to Ba‛al, Yahweh was originally more like El than like Ba‛al.
El-names in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis 570 are frequently used as epithets of Yahweh.
Scholars therefore surmise that Yahweh and El were associated at an early stage, and explain
this connection by assuming that Yahweh was originally an El-figure. Van der Toorn571 is,
however, of the opinion that any speculations regarding the identification of Yahweh with El
should be examined critically. It should also be kept in mind that El's role – as Canaanite
high god – had become largely insignificant at the beginning of the Iron Age; this explains
why there are no traces in the Hebrew Bible of polemics against El. It could thus be argued
569
570
Names, such as "Everlasting God"– ~lw[ la (Gn 21:33); "God Almighty" – ydX la (Gn 17:11; 28:3;
35:11; 43:14; 48:3); "God Most High" – !wyl[ la (Gn 14:18, 22).
571
371
that an identification of El as Yahweh was based on El's decline. Apart from the name, Yah-
weh inherited different attributes of El.572 Cross573 mentions that El, as the proper name of a
non-Israelite Canaanite deity, hardly ever appears in the Masoretic Text. The prophet Ezekiel
– in his oracle on Tyre574 – 'describes Canaanite El in excessively mythological terms'.575
Ezekiel applies ’ělōhîm parallel to ’ēl. In the biblical tradition the name El is often used as an
alternate name of Yahweh. The distribution of El as a proper name equivalent to Yahweh is,
however, irregular. This practice was implemented frequently in the earliest poetry of Israel;
in the late literature only Second Isaiah – apart from Job – uses El excessively as a proper
name of the God of Israel.
Various biblical and extra-biblical sources seemingly indicate that the origin of the god Yah-
weh should be sought amongst the high gods of the Canaanite religion, as well as amongst the
clan deities of the patriarchal families. 576 According to Miller,577 the hypothesis of Frank
Cross represents the most plausible reconstruction of the origins of Yahweh. Cross578 explains
that 'the term ’il appears to have had the general appellative meaning "god", "deity", in the
early stages of all the major branches of the Semitic family of languages'. The Ugaritic texts
indicate without doubt that ’Ilu, El, was the proper name of the head of the Canaanite panthe-
on. Although also used as an appellative, ’Il, as a proper name, normally appears in mythic
and epic texts, pantheon lists and temple records. ’Il, furthermore, often emerges in the earli-
est sources of Old Akkadian; it is also found in Old South Arabic as a divine proper name.
Scholars have noted that the general use of the element ’Il in Akkadian theophorous names
seems to indicate that a deity ’Il – later identified as Semitic El – 'was the chief divinity of the
Mesopotamian Semites in the Pre-Sargonic Period'. 579 Apart from the use of ’Il as a generic
appellative, its appearance as a proper name in the earliest strata of Semitic languages may be
an indication that this designation belongs to Proto-Semitic. 580
The most likely etymology of the word ’ēl,’il, is derived from a root ’wl, meaning "to be
strong" or "to be pre-eminent".581 As, likewise mentioned by Van der Toorn582 (above),
572
See also § 3.8.1 and § 3.8.2.
573
Cross 1974:253-254, 258-260.
574
Ezekiel 28:2.
575
Cross 1974:253.
576
Miller 2000b:24.
577
Miller 2000b:24.
578
Cross 1974:242. See also discussion of Canaanite El in § 3.7.
579
Cross 1974:243.
580
Cross 1974:242-244.
581
Cross 1974:244.
582
372
Cross583 notes that a series of names or appellatives beginning with the element ’ēl – com-
bined with a substantive or adjective – appear in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. These
relevant epithets were preserved in the tradition as names by which Yahweh was called. At
the same time, the two traditions preserved in Exodus584 'retained the memory that the name
Yahweh was not revealed until the Mosaic age'. 585 According to these texts, there was conti-
nuity between the religion of the fathers and the later Yahwistic faith of Israel. These texts in
Exodus indicate that the two religions belonged to two stages in an historical development.
Cross,586 furthermore, indicates that 'El in biblical tradition is often used simply as an alter-
nate name of Yahweh'. The use thereof as a proper name for Israel's God has particular im-
plications for the history of religion. 'The wide overlap in attributes, epithets, and names of
Yahweh with El suggests that Yahweh originated as an El figure, splitting apart from the old
god as the cult of Israel separated and diverged from its polytheistic context.' 587
'The epithet ’El Shaddai, while the most frequent of these epithets, is the most enigmatic.' 588
The element shadday appears in different divine name formations. It seems that the noun is
derived from the word for "mountain" or "breast". 589 Lutzky590 argues in favour of such a
derivation. Any "El Shadday" is noted to be a "god of the Wilderness". Late Bronze Age dei-
ties – with the name-element Shadday – which are associated with hunting and the Wilder-
ness, have been attested. In their present form, biblical references to Shadday or El Shadday
are exilic, or mostly post-exilic – consistently used as an epithet for Yahweh. The P-source591
formulated a theory regarding the "salvation history" of Israel, according to which Yahweh
revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but not under his real name; he revealed him-
self as El Shadday.592 A post-exilic fictitious list of the heads of Israelite clans contains three
names that include the element "Shadday".593 These names appear in the generation that pre-
cedes Moses' contemporaries, and therefore suggests that it was constructed in accordance
with Exodus 6:3.594
583
Cross 1974:255-256.
584
Exodus 3:14-15; 6:2-3.
585
Cross 1974:256.
586
Cross 1974:258.
587
Cross 1974:260.
588
Cross 1974:256.
589
Cross 1974:256-257.
590
Lutzky 1998:15-36. See § 3.2.1 for a discussion of this argument.
591
See § 8.2.
592
Genesis 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Exodus 6:3.
593
Shede’ur, father of Elizur, from Reuben (Nm 1:5); Zurishaddai, father of Shelumi’el, from Shimeon (Nm
1:6); Ammishaddai, father of Ahiezer, from Dan (Nm 1:12).
594
Knauf 1999b:750-751.
373
Cross595 indicates that the modern discussion of the religion of the patriarchs was initiated by
Albrecht Alt in a "brilliant essay" published in 1929.596 He expanded on the theory of Alt
who isolated a group of 'epithets in which the god is identified by the name of the patri-
arch'. 597 They are called the "gods of the fathers". Although these gods were originally dis-
tinct deities, they were – in the development of Israel's traditions – coalesced into a single
family god by artificially linking them genealogically to the fathers; they were concurrently
assimilated to Yahweh. These deities were later identified as the god of the fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob – known as God Almighty, El Shadday.
Exodus 3:13-15 clearly indicates continuity between the religion of the fathers and the Yah-
wistic faith of later Israel. Early reconstructions by scholars, such as Robertson Smith and
Julius Wellhausen, who attempted to recreate the pre-Yahwistic stage of the tribal ancestors,
were repudiated by Alt. Formidable barriers obstruct any approach to the Patriarchal Age.
Early epic traditions of Israel, transmitted orally over an abyss of time, hardly reflect the reli-
gious milieu of their origin. These traditions were shaped – more or less uncontrolled – by
written sources. Alt recognised that archaeological data bearing on the second millennium
BC exhibited a different picture to that previously painted by older historians. These data
clearly indicate 'that the religion of Israel's neigbors was on a very much more sophisticated
level than that being predicated for the pre-Mosaic tribes'.598
According to Cross,599 an analysis of the patriarchal traditions gives an indication of the es-
sential traits of this religion. The religious type, "the god of the fathers", differs radically
from the cults of the Canaanite deities. The "god of the father" is designated by the name of
the patriarch – and thus the name of the founder of his cult – but is not attached to a shrine.
There is a special relation between the patriarch and the "god of the father". This deity was
therefore the patron of the clan. The particular traits of the patriarchal gods anticipate some
characteristics of the cult of Yahweh, which provides continuity between the old religious
forms and the new emergent Yahwism. Although Alt has made a significant contribution to
the research of the patriarchal religion, by distinguishing a particular type of god among the
multitude of Ancient Near Eastern deities, this analysis has, nonetheless, raised a number of
questions. It is unlikely that the patriarchal god was nameless, apart from his designation by
the eponym of the clan. Although these deities belonged to pastoral or nomad tribes, they
595
Cross 1962:225-227.
596
Der Gott der Väter. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament III, 12.
597
Cross 1962:226.
598
Cross 1962:225.
599
Cross 1962:227-228, 231-232.
374
were probably imported ancestral gods, not belonging to popular sanctuaries. In conclusion,
Cross600 denotes that 'the popularity of the cult of ’El in the Semitic community in Sinai,
Egypt, and Seir, gives some plausibility to the notion that Yahweh was an ’El figure … (and)
if ’El and Yahweh were related as we have suggested, many of the puzzling features of the
cult of Jeroboam would have immediate explanation'. 601
Miller 602 judges the reasoning of Cross as 'the most extensive and far-reaching to date, (it)
serves to illuminate and clarify the continuities between the god of the fathers and Canaanite
El and Yahweh, god of Israel'. He mentions furthermore that Cross proposes an answer to the
basic question, whence Yahweh? Cross' hypothesis is based on careful analysis of different
kinds of data; he reaches the conclusion that Yahweh was originally a cultic name of El.
Yahweh could also have been an epithet of El as a patron deity of the Midianites or Kenites.
The divine El names in Genesis point to the worship of the Canaanite high god El in the patri-
archal religion. These names are various liturgical or cultic titles for Canaanite El. The char-
acteristics of this Canaanite deity made the identification with the patriarchal gods natural,
particularly as the god of the father – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – might have been Amorite
El. When El was eventually ousted from his place in the divine council, 603 the god Yahweh
would have split off from El. Yahweh was thus in origin an El-figure, and throughout the his-
tory of Israel's religion the various El names continued to be acceptable titles for Yahweh.604
Curtis605 finds it regrettable that the Ugaritic texts do not shed more light on the 'absolute ori-
gins of the cult of Yahweh'. These texts may, however, be relevant to a very early period in
the development of Yahwism; particularly regarding the Patriarchal Period, before the ances-
tors of the Israelites came into contact with the cult of Yahweh. The Ugaritic texts – ca 1400-
1350 BC – date not more than a century earlier from an accepted date for the exodus. They
obviously reflect beliefs held by Canaanites. One of the reasons for the suggestion by schol-
ars that Canaanite El and Yahweh became equated, is the assumption that there was no tension
between the cults of El and Yahweh. It is difficult to pinpoint a time and place when an as-
similation of these two deities took place. After the exodus the God of the fathers – El – was
600
Cross 1962:257.
601
See Cross (1962:257-258) for an elucidation of his suggestion concerning the cult of Jeroboam.
602
Miller 2000a:381.
603
Psalm 82. In the earliest traditions of Israel, many characteristics and functions of El are similar to those of
Yahweh. In Psalm 82 Yahweh acts as judge in the court of El, and the psalm portrays a general picture of Yah-
weh as head of the Divine Council. The early cultic establishment of Yahweh – the Tabernacle and its appurte-
nances – all reflect Canaanite models, particularly the Tent of El (Cross 1973:72).
604
Miller 2000a:379-381.
605
Curtis 1985:116.
375
identified with Yahweh. Later biblical writers reversed the process by suggesting that the an-
cestors of Israel – without realising it – actually worshipped Yahweh, whom they knew as El
or the God of the fathers. It is possible that Yahweh adopted the attribute of fatherhood from
El who stood – as the "father god" El – in a kinship relationship with his tribal worshippers.
As Yahweh took over the attributes of El, he was regarded as the original creator, the heavenly
king.606 It is, furthermore, not improbable that tribal gods of the migrating patriarchs would
have been characterised by their association with a particular tribe, rather than a locality. 607
Guillet608 denotes that the history regarding El is rather obscure. 'As a common name it des-
ignates the divinity in almost the whole Semitic world'. It seems to have been the supreme
deity, particularly in Phoenicia and Canaan. The question is whether El was not rather the
individual deity of each of the different Semitic clans, and eventually degraded into one of the
figures of the pagan pantheon. The Hebrew Bible attests that the patriarchs called their god
El, albeit under different titles. 609 El ‛Elyôn – God Most High – was the god of Melchizedek,
king of Salem. 610 This El was treated identical with the God of Abraham, the Lord [Yahweh]
God Most High.
Deist and Du Plessis611 mention that Exodus 6:2-3 distinguish between the cultus of the patri-
archs and the religion identified from the time of Moses. Joshua, 612 furthermore, differenti-
ates between the ancestors who venerated other gods, and the group who gathered at Shechem
after their entry into the Promised Land. According to Samuel, 613 the Hebrews and Israelites
were not essentially the same people. Scholars generally agree that different tribes, with vari-
ous backgrounds – and not necessarily related – eventually grouped together to form the Isra-
elite nation. Some of these tribes venerated El, yet, it is reasonable to expect traces of Yah-
wism transmitted to the El-religion. In the light of similarities between El and Yahweh, it is
thus conceivable that some traditions claim that Yahweh was actually the deity who was wor-
shipped from the beginning.
606
Curtis 1985:116-118.
607
A process of identification of the patriarchal gods with El is seen, inter alia, in the revelation to Jacob at Beth-
el (Gn 28:12-17). 'The tribal gods (thus), being identified with various manifestations of El, merged into a "God
of the Fathers" who was, in fact, El' (Curtis 1985:116).
608
Guillet 1973:206.
609
Titles, such as El ‛Elyôn, !wyl[ la (Gn 14:18, 22); El Rōi, yar la (Gn16:13-14); El Shadday, ydX la (Gn
17:11; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3); El Bethel, latb la (Gn 35:7); El ‛Ōlām, ~lw[ la (Gn 21:33). See also
earlier footnote in this paragraph.
610
Genesis 14:18-20. See explanatory footnote on Melchizedek at the end of § 3.6.
611
Deist & Du Plessis 1981:7-12, 20, 29.
612
Joshua 24:2.
613
1 Samuel 14:21.
376
Van Seters614 argues that the term ’ēl is ambiguous therein that it could be the name of the
god El, or a generic appellative for "deity". In some instances in the Hebrew Bible it is ap-
parent that El is a proper name synonymous with Yahweh. The question arises what the sig-
nificance of this usage is – particularly in Genesis – and whether it indicates 'that the Israelite
god Yahweh is being identified with a quite distinct deity El who is known to us from the
mythological texts of ancient Ugarit'. 615 Genesis 46:3 is cited as evidence that El was a patri-
archal deity. El epithets in Genesis should be explained in terms of the criterion of Israelite
liturgical tradition.
De Moor616 is of the opinion that if powerful people – such as Ahab and Jezebel617 – who ob-
viously had polytheistic sympathies, deemed it wise to give Yahwistic names to their chil-
dren,618 ordinary citizens would have followed suit. This occurrence, to avoid the introduc-
tion of pagan elements in personal names, seems to indicate that Yahwism would have been
the official religion in Israel, from at least the ninth century BC onwards. Before the time of
David, theophoric biblical personal names – in all the tribes of Israel – showed preference for
El, and not for Yahweh. However, the later popularity for Yahwistic names started much ear-
lier than the establishing of Zion as national centre of worship of Yahweh. The absence of the
name Yahweh from Ancient Near Eastern god lists is usually interpreted as an indication that
the God of Israel was an unknown god who had come forth from the desert. The earliest ac-
counts of this march from the South are, however, products from the North – and thus Elohis-
tic. Some scholars interpret the tradition of the South as an indication that Yahweh was the
name of the tribal god of some early Israelites; in Canaan this god Yahweh would have
merged with El. De Moor619 does not find this explanation totally satisfactory. He denotes
that 'the idea of a fundamental contrast between a nomadic YHWH and a sedentary El' should
be abandoned, and concludes that 'if YHWH and El were the same God, and if he was the
God of the fathers, it would seem a valid approach to put greater trust in the Yahwistic and
Elohistic sources of Genesis'. This is, however, not a convincing method to deal with the
614
Van Seters 1980:222, 224, 229-230.
615
Van Seters 1980:222.
616
De Moor 1997:12, 39, 323-325.
617
Ahab was king of Israel, ca 874-853 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196). 1 Kings 17:29, 31b state, Ahab the
son of Omri, 'he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served
Baal and worshiped him'.
618
Ahaziah, son and successor of Ahab (1 Ki 22:51); his name means, "Yahweh has seized" (Thiel 1992a:107).
Joram, brother and successor of Ahaziah, thus son of Ahab (2 Ki 8:16); his name means "Yahu is high".
Athaliah descents from Omri. In 2 Kings 8:26 she is indicated as the granddaughter of Omri – thus presumably
the daughter of Ahab; 2 Kings 8:18 refers to Jehoram's wife [Athaliah], the daughter of Ahab. The meaning of
the name Athaliah is controversial, since it cannot be traced to Hebrew. If derived from Akkadian, it could
mean, "Yahweh has manifested his glory" (Thiel 1992b:511).
619
De Moor 1997:323. See De Moor (1997:323-325) for an explanation of his point of view.
377
'problem of how Canaanite El became YHWH in Israel'; further investigation should start
with the name Yahweh itself. 620 De Moor's621 thesis is 'that YHWH was a manifestation of El
and that early Israel worshipped El as the highest God who had dwarfed all other deities, in-
cluding Baal'.
According to MacLaurin,622 the Hebrew slaves in Egypt probably worshipped El, who, in the
hypostasis of El Shadday, was venerated in Canaan as the god of the fathers. There is also the
possibility that the ancestors worshipped Yah –who might have been identified with El – be-
fore they left Canaan; a Ugaritic text mentions, 'the name of my son is Yaw-el'.623 Moses was
introduced to the deity Yah by the Midianites. Both El and Yah might therefore have been
recognised before the Hebrew ancestors left Canaan.
Seitz624 mentions that, although Exodus 6:3 explicitly states that the proper name Yahweh was
not revealed until the time of Moses, this name Yahweh does appear in Genesis. This anach-
ronism could be explained thereby, that the narrator was fully knowledgeable about the divine
Name at the time when he related his "history" – as were his readers; he was therefore not
concerned – from an historical perspective – to elucidate this anachronism. Regarding the
ancestors, God appeared as Yahweh and as El Shadday. Various authorial voices are involved
in the books of Genesis and Exodus, therefore the different levels of tradition should be ana-
lysed with regard to their character and relationship to one another. Cassuto 625 is of the opin-
ion 'that the names YHWH and ’Elohim merely indicate two different facets of His [God's]
activity or two different ways in which He reveals Himself to mankind'.
It seems that the tradition of El (la) as the god of the exodus survives in particular passag-
es,626 'where to regard ’ēl as nothing more than a poetic or archaizing allusion to ’elōhim or
Yahweh begs the question'.627 Smith628 observes that according to these specific texts El, who
has freed them from Egypt, was 'for them like the horns of the wild ox'. 629 This description
correlates with the animal attributes of Canaanite El in Ugarit, reflected in his title "Bull El".
620
De Moor 1997:323, 325.
621
De Moor 1997:191.
622
MacLaurin 1962:460.
623
Refer to Ugaritic VI AB IV 14 (MacLaurin 1962:460). See discussion in § 4.3.5 concerning a deity name Yw
in Ugarit.
624
Seitz 1999:146-147, 159, 161.
625
Cassuto 1961:88.
626
Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Psalm 106:19-22.
627
Wyatt 2005:9.
628
Smith 2002:21, 27.
629
Numbers 23:22.
378
Ugaritic texts therefore provide a background for the development of the Israelite religion.
Dijkstra630 agrees that 'El was the original God of Israel', and that somewhere in the history of
Israel Yahweh became the God of Israel – the name El thus evolved into a title of Yahweh.
Burnett631 denotes that the character of Elohim in Genesis is depicted as the personal deity of
Israel's ancestors. The relationship is typified by the patriarch's obedience, as well as the pro-
tection and guidance on the part of Elohim. 'The disclosure of the name of the ’ĕlōhîm in Ex-
od 3:13-14 completed the portrayal of the patriarchal deity in Genesis. The god whom Israel's
ancestors called ’ĕlōhîm is Yahweh, the god of Moses'. 632
L’Heureux633 indicates that scholars have made different attempts to reconstruct the process
that led to the belief in Yahweh that became normative in ancient Israel. In this practice vari-
ous degrees of significance have been assigned to the cult of El. He is of the opinion that
Cross made the most creative contribution to this debate in his suggestion that Yahweh was an
El-figure right from the start; Yahweh thus being an epithet or cult name of El. This basic
thesis can thus be commended; the strongest argument in favour of this theory being the inex-
plicability that the worshippers of the "gods of the fathers" accepted Yahweh as the god of the
tribal league during the period of the Judges. Later, as the cult of Yahweh developed histori-
cally, and the characteristic features of Yahwism emerged, Yahweh separated from El to be-
come a distinct deity. Scholars have, however, not reached consensus as to how El traditions
were absorbed by Yahwism.
5.7 Yahweh-El: an ancestral god

De Moor634 mentions that 'the ancient Canaanites believed that great heroes and kings were
joined to their divine patron after their death'; the implication being that the "divine presence"
of celebrated persons returned to its Creator. During the first half of the second millennium
BC an ancestor of one of the proto-Israelite tribes probably received the divine name Yah-
wi-Ilu – a common Amorite personal name. "Ilu" indicates that this person was united with
the Canaanite deity Il/Ilu after his death. 635 According to De Moor,636 it is plausible that the
name Yahweh was derived from Yahwi-Ilu. However, this does not imply that Yahweh
630
Dijkstra 2001a:102.
631
Burnett 2001:137.
632
Burnett 2001:149.
633
L'Heureux 1979:56-59.
634
De Moor 1997:368-369.
635
According to a Ugaritic legend, king Kirtu (or Keret), and other deified Ugaritic ancestors were united with
’Ilu (De Moor 1997:368). See footnote in § 3.2.1 concerning the legend of Kirtu/Keret. See also footnote in the
same paragraph incorporating a description of Danel.
636
De Moor 1997:368.
379
was originally a human being. As these heroes and kings became manifestations of Ilu/El on-
ly after their death, the divine Yahweh-El would therefore be a specialisation of El. The "di-
vine name" of the deified ancestor thus exhibited a new identity.
As a result of Ba‛al's growing popularity in northern Canaan during the Late Bronze Age,
Ilu/El became more or less redundant. Traditions indicate that El had devoted followers
among the early Israelites in southern Canaan. It became necessary to distinguish between
this "southern" El and his weaker "northern" namesake who was fading into oblivion. For the
early Israelites their concept of El was in the form of Yahweh-El, their own ancestral manifes-
tation of El. 'Thus the El of the fathers was essentially the same God as YHWH'; 637 this is
illustrated in the ancient traditions of Israel where the names Yahweh and El(ohim) are still
found. The patriarchs and devotees of the early Davidic dynasty venerated their deified an-
cestors alongside Yahweh. Standing stones supposedly facilitated communication with the
spirits of the dead. It could thus be assumed that Yahweh was not a foreign deity who merged
with El in Canaan, but that he was a manifestation of El from the beginning. It is, however,
not possible to pinpoint when the El-deity, Yahweh-El, came into being. The historical "time
origin" of Yahweh therefore remains unattainable. 638
Dedan – also named Datan or Ditan – was one of the ancestors of the royal families of Ugarit
and Assyria. According to Ugaritic texts, he was deified. Dedan takes a prominent place in
some Ugaritic ritual texts related to the cult of the dead. The spirits of the royal ancestors –
the Rephaim of the earth – are called the assembly of Dedan.639 The parallelism between the
"assembly of Dedan" and the "Rephaim of the earth/Netherworld", indicates that he was con-
sidered to be the first deified royal ancestor.640
The term ’ôb, which scholars agree relates to necromancy and the conjuration and consulta-
tion of the spirits of the dead, is attested seventeen times in the Hebrew Bible. Its etymology
and precise meaning are still debated. In the Ancient Near East, necromancy was part of the
Cult of the Ancestors. By prayer and supplication the dead patriarch was consulted by the
family who sought advice and assistance. There is a detectable semantic affinity between the
Hebrew term ’ôb and the designations for the spirits of the dead in other cultures and
637
De Moor 1997:369.
638
De Moor 1997:333, 368-369.
639
Ugaritic text KTU2 1.161 (Spronk 1999a:232).
640
Spronk 1999a:232.
380
languages.641 In both Ugarit and Mesopotamia the spirits of the dead were objects of culture
veneration. They could be summoned by means of magical incantation; specific necromantic
rituals are known. The majority of the occurrences of ’ôb in the Hebrew Bible are in contexts
of pronouncements against idol worship. 'The equating of the ancestor cult and idol worship
is a clear indication that the ancestors were the object of cultic veneration by their descend-
ants.'642 Any Israelite who followed the practices of the ancestral cult was cultically un-
clean. 643 People who had an ’ôb in them – and thus serve as medium – were capital offenders
in Israel and subject to death by stoning. 644 The ’ôb in the Masoretic Text primarily signifies
the deified spirits of the ancestors, and thus the cultic representation of the ancestors – the an-
cestral image. 645
L'Heureux646 explains that, although the expression rp’m qdmym was documented at Ugarit,
the application of the term rp’m as reference to the "shades of the dead", was a relatively late
development. In an earlier period this term referred to members of an elite group of chariot
warriors. These warriors constituted the of El. The term rapi’ūma was also applied
to deities 'who gathered around El to celebrate the mythic counterpart of the earthly
of El'.647 The Rephaim were thus also connected to the status of El. It seems that some of the
rapi’ūma had a special relationship with Ba‛al. Van der Toorn648 mentions that Rakib-El is
known to have been the deity of the kings of a Neo-Hittite dynasty – Sam’al – in South-east
Anatolia. Some scholars identify the name as meaning "charioteer of El". It is also possible
that Rakib-El was associated with the storm god Hadad – or Ba‛al – who is known by the epi-
thet "Rider-of-the-Clouds".
The term rěpā’îm – ~yapr – occurs mostly in the poetical and "historical" books of the
Masoretic Text. The term designates the spirits of the dead and is also related to Ugaritic
rpum, a name for the deified royal ancestors. Several references in the Hebrew Bible design-
nate the ancient inhabitants of Palestine as Rephaim; they were characterised by their enor-
mous size. 649 Og, of unknown etymology, is attested twenty-two times in the Hebrew Bible
641
Similarities, such as Ugaritic rpum; Phoenician rp’m; Hebrew rěpā’îm (Rephaim) (Tropper 1999:807).
642
Tropper 1999:808.
643
Leviticus 19:31.
644
Leviticus 20:27.
645
Tropper 1999:806-809.
646
L'Heureux 1979:227-228.
647
L'Heureux 1979:228.
648
Van der Toorn 1999c:686.
649
Rouillard 1999:692.
381
as the king of Bashan, 650 along with the Amorite king Sihon. Og is referred to as one of the
survivors of the Rephaim.651 Og was huge in stature, as befitted the race of the giants. 652 The
Ugaritic Kirtu legend 653 contains two references to the Rephaim. Regarding biblical material,
Isaiah 14:9 is observed as a key text. The Rephaim are mentioned in parallelism with "all the
leaders of the earth" and "all the kings of the nations". The royal character is thus evident.
The Rephaim – who belonged to the Netherworld – were leaders and kings in life, now
without power. 'Transcending the boundaries of time, space, and morality, the community of
the Rephaim embraces all the royal dead.'654
One of the proposed aspects associating biblical Rephaim and Ugaritic rpum is their role as
healers. Although there are clear links in the portrayals of Rephaim in biblical and Ugaritic
texts, they also diverge significantly. Biblical prose texts present them as an ethnic group of
giants who were former inhabitants of Canaan and Transjordan, while poetic texts – where
Rephaim are connected with death – have an obvious Ugaritic link. Ugaritic rpum who trav-
elled in chariots on their way to feasting, are, however, not paralleled in the Hebrew Bible.
The word rpum is connected to the word rp’, "heal", which seemingly suggests that they were
healers. Notwithstanding this proposal, there is no evidence in either Hebrew, Phoenician or
Ugaritic texts that indicate a healing role for the Rephaim.655
The early inhabitants of Moab were also considered to be Rephaim; they probably occupied
most of Transjordan. The term Rephaim might have been a general designation for the myth-
ical inhabitants of southern Syria and Transjordan, before habitation by the Ammonites and
Moabites. Biblical texts present the Rephaim as a 'conglomerate consisting of various ethnic
groups, each with its own characteristics'. 656 Scholars previously, erroneously, linked the Re-
phaim to the teraphim.657 Schnell658 mentions that the tradition of the "aboriginal
650
For example, Numbers 22:33. Bashan was a region east of the Jordan River, bounded by Mount Hermon in
the north.
651
Deuteronomy 3:11; Joshua 12:4; 13:12.
652
Deuteronomy 3:11. The remark about his bed, which was preserved in Rabbat Ammon, is taken as a refer-
ence to a Dolmen tomb (Del Olmo Lete 1999:638). Dolmens are megalithic structures, consisting of a stone
chamber, created by the erection of two or more massive vertical stones and one, or more, massive "roof" stones.
Although scholars agree that dolmens are tombs, conclusive proof of such a deduction has not, as yet, been pro-
duced. Dolmens occur from the British Isles into the Near East. Huge dolmen "fields" are found in the Jordan
Valley. There is no evidence as to who built the dolmens; their age ranges from 7000-3000 BC. These phenom-
ena are linked to the Rephaim (Swauger 1992:220-221).
653
654
Rouillard 1999:696.
655
Williams 2005:266-267, 274.
656
Rouillard 1999:698. See Genesis 14:5; Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 20; Joshua 17:15.
657
Rouillard 1999:693, 695-699. Teraphim: see footnote in § 2.13, subtitle "Female figurines".
658
Schnell 1962:35.
382
giants" probably originated from Hebrew folklore, partially inspired by the megalithic struc-
tures of the Neolithic period, found in Transjordan; the Rephaim are commonly – but not ex-
clusively – associated with this region.
The Hebrew Bible refers to Rapha – hpr/apr – an ancestor of various warriors who battled
659
with David. The Rapha, translated as "giants", have been linked to the Rephaim and are
interpreted as deities whose cult centre was in Gath. The Hebrew word hārāpā’ – "the healer"
– connects the ancestor of a distinguished guild of Philistine soldiers with the Rephaim.
Rapha, likewise, refers to a Canaanite underworld deity. 660 'The Rephaim are not extinct
souls, but their life has little substance.'661 They have no wisdom or understanding 662 and
cannot praise God.663 Isaiah 14:9 suggests that they are the aristocracy of the dead.664
5.8 Adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh: an evaluation of hypotheses

Certain aspects of the theory of Alt – developed by Cross – have merits for the reconstruction
of the origin of Yahwism. In Exodus 6:2-3 a clear distinction is made between the religion of
the fathers and the religion since the time of Moses. Exodus 3, 4 and 6 repeatedly refer to the
"god of the fathers", while in Exodus 6:3 Yahweh explicitly indicates that 'by my name the
LORD [Yahweh] I did not make myself known to them' [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob]. In the
light of the identification of the "god of the fathers" – as revealed in Exodus 6 – there is credi-
bility in the theory of Alt that the patriarchs venerated El, particularly by the name El Shad-
dai. Cross does, however, indicate that the religious type, "the god of the fathers", differs rad-
ically from the cults of the Canaanite deities. The suggestion that particular traits of the patri-
archal gods anticipate some characteristics of the cult of Yahweh, is conceivable.
Cross reaches the conclusion that Yahweh was originally a cultic name of El, and that Yahweh
could also have been an epithet of El as patron deity of the Midianites and Kenites. Cross,
furthermore, contemplates that Yahweh was thus in origin an El-figure. One of the reasons
for the suggestion that Canaanite El and Yahweh became equated, is the assumption that there
was no tension between the cults of El and Yahweh; there are also no polemics against El in
659
2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1 Chronicles 20:4, 6, 8. The Hebrew spelling of Rapha in the four verses in 2
Samuel, is hpr, while the spelling in 1 Chronicles is apr . One of the meanings in Holladay (1971:344) of
hpr is, "fade away"; apr, ~yapr is indicated as legendary pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine; ghosts (of the
dead).
660
Becking 1999e:687.
661
Schnell 1962:35.
662
Proverbs 9:18; 21:16.
663
Psalm 88:10.
664
Schnell 1962:35. See also Isaiah 26:14.
383
the Hebrew Bible. This hypothesis likewise claims that, as attributes, epithets and names of
Yahweh overlap with those of El, it substantiates the theory that Yahweh originated as an El-
figure, and that, in the light of similarities between El and Yahweh, it is credible that Yahweh
was actually the deity that was worshipped from the beginning.
Despite the merits of the hypothesis of Cross and other scholars, I cannot completely agree
with their theory. As indicated earlier in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.5, a strong point of the Kenite
hypothesis is the recurring biblical traditions describing Yahweh's "march" from the South, as
well as Egyptian records linking Yahu to Seir and Edom, suggesting early knowledge of Yah-
weh in these regions. The hypothesis of Cross does not really give an indication where Yah-
weh came from. If he originated from, or as an El-figure, it still does not explain where the
name Yahweh, or the perception of the Deity, came from. Moses was introduced to the mean-
ing of the name Yahweh and was advised that the patriarchs knew God by another name –
mainly as El Shadday. According to this information, it does seem that Yahweh and the god
of the fathers – known as El or El Shadday – were the same God. I would suggest that Yah-
weh "from the South" did not originate from an El-figure, but that El might have been an epi-
thet or cultic name for Yahweh. See paragraph 5.9 – Résumé and Conclusion – for a motiva-
tion of this suggestion by me.
Regarding the suggestion – specifically by De Moor – that the name Yahweh was derived
from the name Yahwi-Ilu – a deified ancestor of one of the proto-Israelite tribes – it is unlike-
ly that the name Yahweh would have been elicited from the name of a deified ancestor.

As indicated in my hypothesis – and also referred to in paragraph 4.3.14 – in accordance with
the Kenite hypothesis, I theorise that Yahweh was venerated by the Kenites and Midianites
before the time of Moses. Although there are sparse references to the Kenites and related
marginal groups in the Masoretic Text, an analysis of the Kenites – as far as available infor-
mation permits – indicates that various facets concerning these people substantiates the plau-
sibility of this particular hypothesis.
As expressed by Handy, 665 to explain religious traditions with virtually no reliable source ma-
terial available, does seem audacious. Scholars attempt to create a coherent picture of Israel's
665
Handy 1994:3-4.
384
religion, yet, there is no general tradition that can be authenticated. Although traditions are at
variance, the Hebrew Bible declares a natural development of the religion itself. As
Kuenen666 points out, our concept of Israel's religious history depends completely on our
judgement of the Hebrew Bible. Scholars are generally in agreement that the historical books
were written centuries after the events they record. It is, therefore, totally unlikely that the
relevant oral traditions would have remained unbiased and free from external influences after
such a long time. Texts in their present form are thus not mere reconstructions of incidents,
but would have been influenced by conditions and matters that dominated the exilic and post-
exilic periods; the time – generally accepted by scholars – when Israel's history was mainly
recorded. Although 'the Hebrew Bible presents a quite clear schematic outline of the history
of Israelite religion', 667 this traditional biblical view can hardly be called historical.
The Hebrew Bible, furthermore, gives a fairly explicit picture of the manner in which Yahweh
– as the God of the Israelites – revealed himself to the patriarchs and to Moses, and thereby,
thus an account of the origin of the Israelite religion. Three different recitals in the Penta-
teuch about this significant historic event are an indication that beliefs were at variance. Ac-
cording to the Yahwist narrator, people began to call upon the name of Yahweh as early as the
time of the birth of Enosh.668 Exodus 3:14-15669 records that God revealed himself to Moses
by the name Yahweh, stating that he is 'the LORD [Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'. The Priestly account 670 declares that
God said to Moses, 'I am the LORD [Yahweh]. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,
as God Almighty [El Shadday], but by my name the LORD [Yahweh] I did not make myself
known to them'. In another revelation God told Jacob, 'I am the LORD [Yahweh], the God of
Abraham your father and the God of Isaac'. 671 Contrary to earlier accounts in Genesis, the
Priestly record – Exodus 6:2-3 – creates the impression that the name Yahweh was revealed to
Moses for the first time. The Pentateuch thus supports a twofold tradition about the disclo-
sure of Yahweh, and consequently of the origin of Yahwism.
Dijkstra672 is of the opinion that the Israelites and their religion – thus also belief in Yahweh –
originated more or less simultaneously on the soil of Canaan. Knowledge about Canaanite
666
Kuenen 1882a:11.
667
Mayes 1997:51.
668
Genesis 4:26 (Boshoff et al 2000:88). Enosh was the son of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve; this record
referring to Yahweh thus dates to the time before the Flood.
669
Elohist account (Boshoff et al 2000:104).
670
Exodus 6:2-3 (Boshoff et al 2000:162).
671
Genesis 28:13. Yahwist and Elohist accounts mixed (Boshoff et al 2000:88).
672
Dijkstra 2001a:92-93.
385
religions therefore contributes to a better perception of the religion of the early Israelites.
Dijkstra673 also denotes that two independently developed religions of Canaan and Israel
fused into a new religion in certain regions of Palestine; the cult of Yahweh from the southern
desert regions thus merged with the local Canaanite cults. However, as the accounts in the
Hebrew Bible are historically unattainable, the question remains where the Deity Yahweh
came from. According to Lemche, 674 Yahweh could probably originally be pinpointed in the
Sinai Peninsula, thereafter being "brought" to Palestine between the end of the Late Bronze
Age and the emergence of the Israelite Monarchy. Although not substantiated by extra-
biblical epigraphic sources, the rise and establishment of Yahwism – as portrayed in the He-
brew Bible – is the only original evidence we have relating to the worship of Yahweh.
From the limited information available that explicitly refers to the Kenites, as well as from
other relevant subject matter gleaned, scholars have formulated a possible – and, maybe even
probable – scenario regarding the origin of the Kenites and characteristics of this group.
They are mainly distinguished as a nomadic or semi-nomadic tribe of coppersmiths who in-
habited the region south of Tel Arad. In 1894 Bernard Stade identified the Cain narrative of
Genesis as the aetiological legend of the Kenites. 675 The name Cain – !yq – is derived from
the word ytynq, qānîtî, meaning "gotten" or "acquired".676 In Numbers 24:21-22 Cain – !yq –
is associated with the Kenites – ynyq. The name has its etymology in a root qyn, which means
"spear". In later Aramaic and Arabic the root means "smith". In cognate Semitic languages
the word refers tot "tinsmith" or "craftsman". In the genealogical lists of antediluvian heroes,
Kenan – Qênān – is named as the son of Enosh; the latter being a son of Seth, son of Adam. 677
Qênān could be interpreted as meaning "smith", "javelin" or "little Cain". In the primeval his-
tory recorded in Genesis, examples of linear 678 and segmentary679 genealogies are found.
Some scholars consider Genesis 4:17-22680 to be the tribal genealogy of the Kenites, thereby
accepting Cain as the eponymous ancestor of this tribe. The Kenite genealogy might have
been an independent source of their origin which was later incorporated into the Genesis text.
According to Exodus 3:1 and Judges 1:16, there is also a connection between the Midianites
673
Dijkstra 2001a:95-96.
674
Lemche 1988:253.
675
Nolan 1982:14.
676
When Eve 'conceived and bore Cain' she declared 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD' (Gn 4:1).
677
678
A single line of descent is followed, tracing only significant ancestors (Kunin 1995:182).
679
The lines of descent from a particular ancestor are traced (Kunin 1995:182).
680
An example of a linear genealogy (Kunin 1995:182).
386
and Kenites; the latter were perhaps a clan of the Midianites. 1 Chronicles 2:55 furthermore
links the Kenites and the Rechabites.
Linear genealogies consist of lists of seven or ten lineal descendants which segment into three
lines. In Genesis 4:17-22 seven linear descendants are recorded from Cain to Lamech, con-
cluding with the three sons of Lamech. The generations from Cain to Lamech 681 correspond
with those from Kenan to Lamech. 682 The Sethite genealogy – Genesis 4:25-26 – was proba-
bly retained by the redactor as it links Seth's name to the commencement of the worship of
Yahweh. This line – perceived as moral and religious – is in opposition to the Cainite line
which represents good and evil that runs through the whole history of mankind. Although
Seth never intermarried with the daughters of Cain, his children – who were called the "sons
of God" – became iniquitous and took the "daughters of man" as their wives; thus, from the
seed of Cain, the giants were born. Different writers employed particular genealogical forms,
with the aim of an express message for their specific readers. The Chronicler 683 presumably
included most of the genealogical material from the book of Genesis with the intention to
convey his version of the history of ancient Israel, thereby specifying Israel's place among the
nations. Genealogies in Genesis might have been constructed originally by linking names
which have been obtained from early Near Eastern mythological traditions and legends; myth-
ical names were probably used to "fabricate" a biography of the ancestors. Biblical genealo-
gies also denote tribal origins and interrelationships.
Some scholars suggest that Genesis 4:17-24 originally functioned as the genealogy of the
Kenite tribe. Numbers 24:21-22, as well as Judges 4:11 also link Cain and the Kenites. Other
scholars – such as Westermann684 – however, negate the theory that Cain was the eponymous
ancestor of the Kenites. In the development of this genealogy685 the beginning of urban civi-
lisation is described with the report of the building of the first city. The genealogy concludes
with the seventh generation – the three sons of Lamech. These sons represent different occu-
pational groups, which, to a certain extent, required mobility. The occupations and character-
istics of the Kenites correspond with those of the sons of Lamech. Jabal, the first son of
Lamech, was the 'father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock'. 686 Jubal, the second
681
Genesis 4:17-18.
682
Genesis 5:9-25.
683
1 Chronicles 1.
684
685
Genesis 4:17-24.
686
Genesis 4:20.
387
son, was 'the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe'. 687 The last son, Tubal-cain, was
'the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron'. 688
The Kenites – a non-Israelite community or clan – frequented the Wilderness of Sinai. They
were tent dwellers and livestock breeders, as well as musical specialists. Their main occupa-
tion could, however, be associated with that of Tubal-cain who is identified as the founder of
metallurgy, and therefore the first metallurgist. The etymology of the term "Kenite" implies
that they were migrating smiths. In Arabic, Syriac and Palmyrene the root qyn can form the
basis for words meaning "to forge", "metalworker". The traditions of the Kenites – as tent
dwellers, herders, musicians and metalworkers – thus depict Cain as their eponymous ances-
tor.
The Kenites wandered in the Sinai, the Negeb, Midian, Edom, Amalek and northern Palestine.
They later settled in the Negeb, where a region was named after them. They may have dwelt
near Punon, one of the main sources of copper,689 or in the mountains of Edom and Midian –
also close to rich copper deposits. Their presence in the southern regions is confirmed by an
ostracon discovered at Arad – in the Negeb – wherein the place name Kinah is mentioned.
Kinah, which was situated not far from Arad, may be linked to the colonisation by Kenites of
the eastern part of the Beer-sheba Valley. During excavations at Arad, Yohanan Aharoni
identified a village in Stratum XII690 as an establishment of the Kenites. A raised platform –
probably an altar – was also revealed in the centre of the uncovered village. This altar may
reflect a priestly background of this clan. 691 During the tenth century BC the Israelites built
an altar at Arad using stones of the previous altar. Dever, 692 however, disagrees that this site
had any Late Bronze Age occupation.
It seems that the Kenites and other semi-nomadic tribes who dwelt in the South, held a kind of
monopoly on copper mining and the production of copper artefacts. The southern Arabah,
Sinai and Punon were important sources of copper. A large number of metal objects and re-
mains of copper metallurgy – dated back to the beginning of the fourth millennium BC – have
been uncovered during excavations at Tel Arad. Egyptians exploited the mines in Sinai and,
in the Early Iron Age, at Timnah. A smelting camp and copper smelting furnaces and
687
Genesis 4:21.
688
Genesis 4:22.
689
Numbers 24:21 refers to the Kenites who "dwelt in the rock".
690
Dated twelfth to eleventh century BC (Herzog et al 1984:4).
691
Herzog et al 1984:1, 3, 6.
692
Dever 2003:29.
388
relevant metallurgical equipment were found in the Timnah Valley. Egyptians operated the
mines and smelters jointly with the local inhabitants. A small Semitic-type sanctuary, as well
as a high place, close to the site, has also been uncovered. This twelfth century BC Egyptian
Hathor temple693 shows distinct Semitic features. Finds at the temple include a copper snake
with a gilded head; this was probably a Midianite votive serpent. During the thirteenth centu-
ry BC the Hittites discovered a process to extract iron from its ores. The Hittite Empire, how-
ever, collapsed by the end of that century. Scholars have suggested that the Kenites were a
group of metalworkers who had left the Hittite Empire with its downfall and introduced the
art of metallurgy to the Israelites.
The nature of mining and trade in metal products prevented the smith from establishing a
permanent domicile or to become involved in agriculture. They usually moved on when the
supply of ore was exhausted. 'Metallurgists in antiquity, as a rule, formed proud endogenous
lines of families with long genealogies', and their technical lore 'was handed down and guard-
ed jealously from generation to generation'. 694 According to the Song of Deborah,695 it is
clear that the Kenites dwelled in tents and kept cattle. Evidence of their nomadic tendencies
can be recognised in certain textual references. 696 The curse on Cain from the soil697 was
probably perceived by the Kenites as the origin of their nomadic lifestyle. This particular way
of living as nomads suited the Kenites' profession as metalworkers and coppersmiths. Schol-
ars have noted that the "community" of the Kenites was identical to nomadic units at Mari. In
some Mari documents specific terminology for tribal units appear that has been borrowed
from West Semitic. An example is the term hibrum – Hebrew – which refers to a
smaller separate tribal unit of closely linked families within the larger unit of the clan or tribe.
The name "Heber" – the Kenite – seemingly personifies a nomadic subdivision that had bro-
ken away from the parent tribe.698
Tribal custom prescribed that in a tribal community members were protected, irrespective of
them having done right or wrong. In the Hebrew Bible are repeated references to a highly
developed nomadic code of honour. As the Cain narrative is generally regarded as the
693
See § 2.14.1 for a brief discussion of this temple.
694
Frick 1971:285.
695
Judges 5. This poem is dated the end of the twelfth century BC.
696
Moses' Midianite – or Kenite – father-in-law kept flocks (Ex 3:1); Heber, the Kenite, pitched his tent at
Kedesh (Jdg 4:11); Jael, wife of Heber, lived in a tent (Jdg 4:17-18); at the time of Saul the Kenites lived in the
Wilderness of Judah and avoided the arable soil (1 Sm 15:4-8); the Rechabites – who were related to the Kenites
– lived in tents in opposition to agriculture (Jr 35).
697
Genesis 4:11-12.
698
Judges 4:11.
389
aetiological legend of the Kenites, aspects thereof are transferred to the Kenites. Brock-
Utne699 assigns the widespread custom of human sacrifice – in a bid to regain productivity
after a dry season – to the Cain narrative, and suggests that it could reflect on the Kenites who
were known for their blood revenge. Nolan, 700 however, denotes that there is no evidence that
the Kenites ever engaged in human sacrifice. Cain received a mark or sign from Yahweh, in
order that "no one shall kill him". 701 Although there is no indication what the actual mark
was, tribal marks – in ancient customs – served to protect a person and signify to which tribe
he belonged. It seems that the Kenites benefited from such a protective tattoo. The mark fur-
thermore obliged them to avenge the blood of a slain brother.702
The biblical tradition gives the impression that a close link existed between the Midianites
and Kenites. Midian descended from Keturah, another wife of Abraham, whom he took after
the death of Sarah. Midian appears to be the only ideologically significant group of the Ke-
turite tribes. They were pastoral nomads who lived on the east side of the Gulf of Aqabah.
The Hebrew Bible portrays Midian positively, 703 as well as strongly negatively. 704 Although
scholars typified Midianites as Bedouin nomads and traders travelling by camel caravan, it
has become clear that they had a 'complex and highly sophisticated society'. 705 Metalworking
was also a distinctive feature among certain Midianites.
The pattern in traditional Middle Eastern Bedouin societies is more or less consistent with
those of East African pastoral societies where smiths and artisans are viewed with some fear.
They are often spurned and observed as dangerous sorcerers with supernatural powers.
Smiths and tinkers were considered to be from inferior tribes. In myths and traditional sto-
ries, smiths are characterised as being both human and divine. Smiths and other artisans were
probably marginalised, as they did not fully participate in economic activities, such as agricul-
ture or pastoralism. These borderline characteristics can be identified in the biblical portray-
als of the Kenites, Midianites, Rechabites, and other marginal groups.
The idea of the Kenite hypothesis was advanced in 1872 by the Dutch historian of religion,
Cornelius P Tiele, who identified Yahweh as the god of the desert, whom the Kenites and
699
Brock-Utne 1936:207, 213-215.
700
Nolan 1982:23-24.
701
Genesis 4:15.
702
Nolan 1982:16.
703
Moses' father-in-law and Midianite priest suggests a positive attitude towards Midian (Ex 3:1).
704
See, for example, Numbers 22:4-7; 25; 31; Psalm 83.
705
390
related groups venerated before the Israelites worshipped Yahweh. Bernard Stade elaborated
on the concept, but it was Karl Budde who developed the classic formulation of the theory.
According to this hypothesis, a Moses-type figure gained knowledge about and was initiated
into the cult of Yahweh by his father-in-law, Jethro, a Midianite priest – later also referred to
as a Kenite. Mount Sinai was Yahweh's sacred abode, therefore he was worshipped there by
the Midianites and Kenites who dwelt in his territory. According to Albertz, 706 Yahweh was a
southern Palestinian mountain god, worshipped by nomadic tribes. Later traditions disguised
any connection between the Mountain of God and the Midianites, and thus of any pre-Israelite
worship of Yahweh. Van der Toorn707 denotes that 'in its classical form the hypothesis as-
sumes that the Israelites became acquainted with the cult of Yahweh through Moses', who
equated Yahweh with their ancestral divine traditions. The British scholar Rowley later ex-
panded Budde's theory. Rowley argues that Jethro was a priest of Yahweh and that it is un-
likely – if he was a priest of some other god – that he would have offered a sacrifice to Yah-
weh [Elohim].708 The Israelites accepted Yahweh as their God, mainly on account of Yah-
weh's action to save them from the power of the Egyptians, and not on account of Moses' me-
diation of the Kenite religion. Yahweh thus meant something quite different to the Israelites
than to the Kenites. 709
A strong point of this classic hypothesis is the recurring biblical tradition of Yahweh's geo-
graphical link with the South. Particular texts710 in Deuteronomy, Judges, Psalms and Habak-
kuk depict Yahweh's theophany as he came forth from the southern regions, namely Sinai,
Seir, Mount Paran, Edom and Teman. Zechariah 9:14 711 portrays Yahweh as the Storm God
marching forth in the whirlwinds of the South. The Kenites dwelled in the South, in the vi-
cinity of the Midianites and Edomites. Biblical references and archaeological data – as men-
tioned earlier – connect the Kenites to Arad and the Negeb.
706
Albertz 1994:52-53.
707
708
Exodus 18:10-12.
709
Rowley 1967:44.
710
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:8; Habakkuk 3:3.
711
Zechariah 9:14,
'Then the LORD [Yahweh] will appear over them,
and his arrow will go forth like lightning;
The LORD GOD [Yahweh Adonai] will sound the trumpet
and will march forth in the
whirlwinds of the south.'
391
The theory that the Yahwistic cult originated in the South is supported by the thesis proposed
by a number of scholars, that the name Yahweh emanated from the southern regions. 712 One
of the suggestions by scholars is that the name Yahweh developed from a well-known Arabic
interjection Ya, combined with huwa – the third person masculine personal pronoun. Ances-
tors of the North Sinaitic tribes may have worshipped their god with the cultic cry Ya-huwa,
"Oh, He".
The Kenite hypothesis is furthermore substantiated by data obtained from Egyptian records. 713
Texts in these records refer to 'Yhw [Yahu] in the land of the Shasu'.714 The Shasu Bedouins
are likewise identified with Edom, Mount Seir and Seir in these texts. Although these texts
do not directly connect Edom and Seir – the latter a mountainous area associated with Edom –
they do mention that both regions were peopled by Shasu. It therefore seems that the Shasu,
who roamed the South, could be linked to Edom in southern Transjordan and Seir. The refer-
ence –"Yahu in the land of the Shasu" – could thus signify that Yahu was known by the Shasu,
and probably venerated by them. It is also conceivable that there were Edomites, Midianites,
Kenites, and related marginal groups among the Shasu. Genealogically the Edomites are the
nation closest to the Israelites. Van der Toorn715 denotes that, by the fourteenth century BC,
'groups of Edomite and Midianite nomads worshipped Yahweh as their god', before the Israel-
ites became acquainted with the cult of Yahweh. It could, therefore, be deduced that Yahweh
became the major God of Israel owing to an Edomite-Midianite influence.
Paradoxically, references to Yahweh's origins from the South occur in texts from the Northern
Kingdom.716 Inscriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud – an outpost of Northern Israel – also mention
"Yahweh of Teman". The Kenites and associated groups of metalworkers had – by reason of
their particular trade and migratory existence – the opportunity to spread their religious be-
liefs. Heber, the Kenite and a metal craftsman who separated from the Kenites, pitched his
tent in the northern regions. Similarly, Jehonadab ben Rechab, a descendant of the Recha-
bites – a marginal group connected to the Kenites – appeared in Northern Israel. The Yahwist
faith could thus have been spread to the North by groups such as families of Heber and
Jehonadab ben Rechab.
712
The origin of the name Yahweh [YHWH] is discussed in § 4.2.
713
714
See footnotes in § 4.3.4.
715
716
References to "Seir and Edom" in the Song of Deborah (Jdg. 5:4), "Sinai" in Psalm 68:8 and "Teman" in
Habakkuk 3:3.
392
The Midianites are associated with or related to the Edomites, Kenites, Ishmaelites, Hagarites
and Kenizzites. There are also some connections with the Amalekites and Moabites – and
maybe even with the Ammonites. The origin of the name midyan is unknown. The genealo-
gy of Genesis 25:2 includes two descendants of Abraham's wife Keturah, midyan and medan.
The Keturah-tribes, such as Midian, controlled the Arabian desert. Midian dominated the
South and had a significant influence over a wide region. Major caravan routes to the North
were controlled by Midianites. Schloen717 mentions that long-distance trade involved, not
only the intertwining of different ethnic groups, 'but also opportunities for the communication
of new ideas'. According to the "caravan hypothesis" – as Schloen718 calls his theory – it is
plausible that the Yahwistic cult could have spread through the Transjordan and the highlands
of Canaan along the caravan routes from the South.
The Kenite hypothesis alludes to Moses' contact with Jethro, a Midianite Priest. Moses mar-
ried Jethro's daughter Zipporah, which had the implication that the descendants of Moses
were of mixed Midianite/Kenite and Israelite (Levite) blood. Slayton 719 denotes that 'Jethro
was a priest of Yahweh in a unique capacity'. After 'Jethro rejoiced for all the good that the
LORD [Yahweh] had done to Israel', he declared 'now I know that the LORD [Yahweh] is
greater than all the gods'.720 According to Exodus 18:12, Jethro brought a burnt offering and
sacrifices to God [Elohim]. The contents of Exodus 18:1-27 is ascribed to the Elohist, but
mixed with the J-narrator, which explains – to a certain extent – the reference to Yahweh and
to Elohim in the same context. Scholars – such as Houtman721 – experience difficulties with
the role of Jethro, and argue that there is no proof that he was a Yahweh worshipper.
Fensham722 suggests that the tradition preserved in Exodus 18 – the burnt offering and sacri-
fices brought by Jethro to God – could indicate that God was witness to the forming of a trea-
ty between the Israelites and the Kenites. In the Ancient Near East the forming of treaties
were usually accompanied by a sacrifice to a god, or gods. "Defensive alliance" treaties were
also customary in the Ancient Near East. Probably as a result of such a treaty between the
Israelites and the Kenites, Jael – the wife of Heber, the Kenite – aided Israel against the on-
slaught of the Canaanites.723
717
Schloen 1993:36.
718
Schloen 1993:36-37.
719
Slayton 1992:821. Exodus 18:1, 7-11.
720
Exodus 18:9a, 11a.
721
Houtman 1993:96-97.
722
Fensham 1964:51-54.
723
Judges 4:17-22; 5:24-27.
393
The different names for Jethro – as reflected in the Hebrew Bible – are confusing; he is also
called Reuel and Hobab. At the same time he is referred to as a Kenite and a Midianite. Sev-
eral explanations have been proposed for this confusion in names and titles. Reuel was the
name of a son of Esau and was one of the three major Edomite tribes. Moses' Midianite fa-
ther-in-law, therefore, may possibly be linked to the Edomite tribe Reuel. Hobab was the
'eponymous ancestor of a Kenite clan that settled in the Negeb among the tribe of Judah'. 724
This clan could have belonged to the Edomite tribe Reuel, before they relocated to Judah.
In their evaluation of the Kenite hypothesis, scholars have disparate views. The main objec-
tions are as follows: the different names and titles of Moses' father-in-law; the prediction in
Numbers 24725 that the Kenites would disappear – later Israelite traditions do not refer to the
Kenites; Jethro was a Midianite priest, but it is nowhere stated that he was a priest of Yahweh;
Mount Sinai – the mountain of Yahweh/Elohim – was outside the Midianite territory; the
Egyptian and biblical s‛rr could possibly refer to different areas; uncertainty concerning Jeth-
ro's role; the ancient traditions relating to Yahweh's appearance from the South have no refer-
ence to the exodus or the revelation at Sinai; the hypothesis' inability to explain the firm an-
cient tradition in Genesis concerning Yahweh; the disregard of the Canaanite origins of the
Israelites; apart from one allusion in the Hebrew Bible, there is no information available on
the religion of the Kenites.
However, despite objections against the Kenite hypothesis, many scholars support this theory.
In agreement with my thesis, and in accordance with the Kenite hypothesis, I advance that the
origin of Yahweh – and thus Yahwism – should be sought in the southern regions of Palestine
amongst the Kenites, Midianites, Edomites and related marginal groups. Biblical references
to Yahweh's march from the South, extra-biblical Egyptian texts linking Yhw [Yahweh], the
Shasu, Edom and Seir, and the possible origin of the name Yahweh in the same regions, thus
substantiate the basic concept of the Kenite hypothesis.
The discussion on the Kenite hypothesis – paragraph 5.3 – is followed by the paragraph – 5.4
– concerning the Moses figure and traditions. The Kenite hypothesis is evaluated only there-
after – paragraph 5.5. The motivation for this particular order of the paragraphs pertains to
the significance of Moses in respect of the Kenite hypothesis. However, regarding this
724
Knauf 1992b:693.
725
Numbers 24:21-22.
394
résumé, I consider it to be more appropriate that the synopsis of the Kenite hypothesis is fol-
lowed directly by a summary of the evaluation thereof – as above.
Scholars generally agree that the historicity of Moses and the exodus depends solely on the
assessment of the biblical accounts in question. While early Jewish and Christian traditions
believed that the Pentateuch was an historical record composed by Moses himself, some
scholars claim that Moses was only a legendary figure. Editors of the Hebrew Bible attempt-
ed to compose a complete account of his life from collections of disparate data. It is obvious
that different chronicles developed fairly soon after the exodus and Sinai events. According
to tradition, Moses enjoyed a kind of intimate relationship with Yahweh. Van der Toorn726
denotes that his historical role is highly problematic and that his real importance remains an
enigma.
Moses' name is an Egyptian hypocoristicon, composed from the verb mśĭ – "bear", "give birth
to". Egyptian names among his descendants point to a link with Egypt. De Moor 727 proposes
that a certain Beya – whom he identifies with Moses – was the "real ruler" of Egypt in the late
Nineteenth Dynasty. 728 Consistent with tradition, Moses was a Levite and thus a descendant
of Jacob. Some scholars suggest that 1330 BC could be an estimated birth date for Moses.
He died at the age of hundred and twenty years. There is no indication how he died. The ref-
erence to Moses' death as a punishment for his defiance at Meribah, was obviously a justifica-
tion for the problem that a strong leader did not enter the Promised Land.
Amram – from the house of Levi, and who appears only in late genealogical lists – is said to
be Moses' father. Jochebed, wife of Amram and mother of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, was
also a Levite woman. In Numbers 26:59 she is described as the sister of Amram's father. The
marriage between Amram and Jochebed violates the priestly laws which prohibit such a rela-
tionship between a man and his father's sister. Her ancestral lineage, however, establishes a
legitimacy of Aaron as priest in the family of Levi. Jochebed's name appears to be com-
pounded with the name Yahweh. If her name is in reality a Yahwistic theophoric name, this
might be on account of intermarriage between some Israelite tribes and Yahweh-worshipping
Kenite tribes. If Moses thus had some Kenite blood from his mother's side, it could explain
726
727
De Moor 1997:214-227.
728
1293-1185 BC (Clayton 1994:98).
395
his flight to Jethro. The name Yahweh could therefore have been known among the Israelites
in Egypt, even though Yahweh was not the God they worshipped.
The chronicle of Moses' birth and raising is more likely to belong to the realm of folklore than
that of history. After his birth his mother hid him in a basket of bulrushes daubed with bitu-
men and pitch, and placed him among the reeds by the river bank. The pharaoh's daughter
found him there and he later became her son. Similar tales have been recounted of founders
of dynasties. The birth legend of Sargon the Great of Akkad 729 is a chronicle that closely re-
sembles the saga of Moses. The authors of Exodus were probably acquainted with this Akka-
dian legend, and modelled their narrative according to it. Similarly, Moses' flight from Egypt
to Midian and his sojourn in a foreign country is parallel – to a certain extent – to the Egyp-
tian legend of Sinuhe. 730
Two important events are narrated in Exodus regarding Moses' exile in Midian. The first
event relates to his marriage to a daughter of a Midianite priest, and secondly to his commis-
sion to lead his people out of Egypt. According to an old marriage tradition, the relationship
between the bridegroom and his father-in-law is emphasised – and not the relationship be-
tween the groom and his bride. Although Moses' wife and children meet him in the Wilder-
ness – as narrated in Exodus 18 – 'the focal point of this reunion is between Moses and his
father-in-law'.731 It thus seems that the goal of the marriage tradition is to explain the origin
of this relationship, which subsequently led to the initiation of Moses into the cult of Yahweh.
The origin of Moses' wife Zipporah is uncertain; the oldest tradition-layer mentions that he
had a non-Israelite wife. She is referred to as the daughter of the Midianite priest Reuel. In a
strange situation she saves Moses from a divine attack by the adoption of a male role to per-
form a circumcision on her son; she then touched Moses' genitals with her son's foreskin. Af-
ter their meeting with Moses in the Wilderness, Zipporah and her sons disappear from the nar-
rative; the significant family now consists of Moses and his father-in-law, Jethro. The
Kenites are thus related to Moses – and consequently to the Levite tribe – through his Kenite
wife. Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of his Cushite wife. "Cush" was
the term used by the ancient Israelites to refer to the region south of Egypt. The Cushites
were called Ethiopians by the Greeks – meaning "burnt face" and thus obviously referring to
729
See § 3.9 for a brief discussion of the birth legend of Sargon.
730
See footnote in § 5.4, briefly describing the legend of Sinuhe.
731
Coats 1993:25.
396
black people. It is, therefore, possible that Moses' Cushite wife was a black woman. Some
scholars argue that Cushite should be identified with Cushan or Midian; the implication thus
being that Miriam and Aaron refer to Moses' Midianite wife, Zipporah. Overwhelming bibli-
cal citations, however, seem to indicate that "Cushite" refers to the region south of Egypt.
Moses, a principal character in the Exodus chronicle, played a crucial role in the tradition
which advances that the Israelites were introduced to Yahweh by the mediation of Moses.
The revelation to Moses of Yahweh's proper name – as in Exodus 3:14 – and the subsequent
indication – as in Exodus 6:3 – that Yahweh did not make himself known by that name to the
patriarchal fathers, is significant for our perception of the Yahwist religion of the Israelites.
An important problem in these passages – which concern the J and E sources – is the claim in
Exodus 6:3 that God had not previously been known by his proper name Yahweh. The ap-
pearance of the name Yahweh in Genesis is consequently an anachronism. According to Exo-
dus 3:14-15, it was not the Name, but the deeper meaning thereof, which was revealed to Mo-
ses. This matter continues to be debated. The advent of Yahweh confronting Moses from a
burning bush was constructed in the context of Midianite traditions. Moses is tied into the
larger framework of the Midianite priest father-in-law; he tends his father-in-law's flock, and
seeks his permission to return to Egypt.
Exodus 19 describes a theophany of Yahweh when 'Moses brought the people out of the camp
to meet God … there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a
very loud trumpet blast … Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the LORD [Yahweh]
had descended on it in fire … the whole mountain trembled greatly.' 732 Earthquakes were as-
sociated with theophany.
'Through the ages, the sin of Moses, as described in Num 20:1-13, has been regarded as one
of the Gordian knots of the Bible.'733 According to this text, Moses sinned therein that he did
not believe Yahweh; the punishment being that he would not lead the Israelites into the
"Promised Land". The possibility exists that the episodes of Moses' drawing water from the
rock – as related in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 – are variants of the same tradition. Moses
possibly ascribed miraculous powers to himself and Aaron. Numbers 21:4-9 recounts the in-
cident when Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the Israelites. On instruction of Yahweh, Mo-
ses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole so that anyone who was bitten by a serpent
732
Exodus 19:16-18.
733
Milgrom 1983:251.
397
and looked at the bronze serpent would live. Yahweh is thus 'the deity responsible for healing
through the symbolic instrument of the bronze snake'. 734 The Masoretic Text states that the
name of the bronze serpent, which king Hezekiah broke into pieces during his religious re-
forms, was , which is clearly a wordplay on the words for bronze or copper – něh
– and serpent – . There might have been some connection between this bronze serpent,
the rod in Moses' hand that turned into a serpent – – in Egypt, and the that chal-
lenged Eve in the garden.735
Whereas it remains problematic to recognise any historical substance as such in the patriar-
chal narratives, the exodus chronicle – on the other hand – points to signs of a monarchical or
later composition. While some scholars reject the value of the account of the exodus for his-
torical purposes, other scholars accept some sort of departure from Egypt by certain anteced-
ents of the Israelites. It is unlikely that an ancient group would have fabricated a tradition
presenting its ancestors as slaves. Some archaic poems in the Hebrew Bible recall the exodus,
thereby intimating its historical value. Davies, 736 however, refers to the exodus as 'one of a
number of alternative immigration stories', without historical basis or explanation. He sug-
gests that many Judeans most likely went to Egypt at the end of the sixth century BC, return-
ing later from Egypt – maybe even under a leader with the Egyptian name Moses – to settle in
Yehud. He refers to a fourth century BC Egyptian chronicle – preserved in Hecataeus737 –
which mentions an Egyptian by the name of Moses, who established the Jewish priesthood.
Rowley738 denotes that there is no evidence that polytheism in Israel developed into monothe-
ism by natural evolution. There is also no evidence that Moses practised monotheism in the
sense that he denied the existence of more than one god, or that he was a polytheist therein
that he worshipped many gods. He did, however, plant the seed of monotheism. Although
there are no external witnesses to Moses, Dever 739 endeavours to reconcile a probably "mythi-
cal-Moses" of the biblical texts with a possible historical "Moses-like figure".
De Moor740 indicates that 'the ancient Canaanites believed that great heroes and kings were
joined to their divine patron after their death'. During the second millennium BC, an ancestor
734
Hendel 1999:746.
735
See § 5.4 for the wordplay in Hebrew.
736
Davies 1992:119-120.
737
See footnote in § 5.4 on Hecataeus.
738
Rowley 1963:42-44.
739
Dever 2003:235.
740
De Moor 1997:368-369.
398
of one of the proto-Israelite tribes probably received the divine name Yahwi-Ilu. According to
De Moor,741 it is plausible that the name Yahweh was derived from Yahwi-Ilu. The word ’ôb,
which is attested in the Hebrew Bible, relates to necromancy and the conjuration and consul-
tation of the spirits of the dead. The term rěpā’îm – also attested in the Masoretic Text – des-
ignates the spirits of the dead, and is related to Ugarit rpum, a name for the deified royal an-
cestors. Og, king of Bashan, is referred to in the Hebrew Bible as one of the survivors of the
Rephaim. Rapha, translated as "giants", have been linked to the Rephaim.
Some scholars argue that Yahweh and El were associated at an early stage, and explain this
connection by assuming that Yahweh was originally an El-figure. It should, however, be kept
in mind that the role of El – as Canaanite high god – became largely insignificant at the be-
ginning of the Iron Age. This diminished role probably explains why there are no traces in
the Hebrew Bible of polemics against El.
Various biblical and extra-biblical sources seemingly indicate that the origin of the god Yah-
weh should be sought amongst the high gods of the Canaanite religion, as well as amongst the
clan deities of the patriarchal families. Frank Cross expanded on the theory of Albrecht Alt
who isolated a group of 'epithets in which the god is identified by the name of the patri-
arch'. 742 These deities are called the "gods of the fathers". Although they were originally dis-
tinct deities, they were – in the development of Israel's traditions – coalesced into a single
family god by artificially linking them genealogically to the fathers; they were concurrently
assimilated to Yahweh. These deities were later identified as God Almighty, El Shadday. A
series of names or appellatives beginning with the element El, appear in the patriarchal narra-
tives in Genesis; Cross743 also explains the term ’el. The epithets – as in Genesis – were pre-
served in the tradition as names by which Yahweh was called. At the same time, the two tra-
ditions preserved in Exodus744 'retained the memory that the name Yahweh was not revealed
until the Mosaic age'.745 According to these texts, there was continuity between the religion
of the fathers and the later Yahwistic faith of Israel. The epithet El Shadday is the most fre-
quent of these epithets; Shadday is seemingly derived from the word for "mountain" or
"breast". Biblical references to Shadday or El Shadday are mostly post-exilic and are consist-
ently used as an appellative for Yahweh.
741
De Moor 1997:368.
742
Cross 1962:226.
743
Cross 1974:242-244.
744
Exodus 3:14-15; 6:2-3.
745
Cross 1974:256.
399
Early epic traditions of Israel, transmitted orally, were shaped – more or less uncontrolled –
by written sources and hardly reflect the religious milieu of their origin. According to
Cross,746 an analysis of the patriarchal traditions gives an indication of the essential traits of
this religion. There is a special relation between the patriarch and the "god of the father", who
is designated by the name of the patriarch. This deity was therefore the patron of the clan.
The particular traits of the patriarchal gods anticipate some characteristics of the cult of Yah-
weh, which provides continuity between the old religious forms and the new emergent Yah-
wism. Miller747 judges the reasoning of Cross as 'the most extensive and far-reaching to date';
it illuminates and clarifies 'the continuities between the god of the fathers and Canaanite El
and Yahweh', and thereby he (Cross) reaches the conclusion that Yahweh was originally a cul-
tic name of El. Yahweh could likewise have been an epithet of El as a patron deity of the Mid-
ianites and Kenites. Yahweh was thus – according to this hypothesis – in origin an El-figure;
throughout the history of Israel's religion the various El names continued to be acceptable ti-
tles for Yahweh.
Guillet748 raises the question whether El was not rather the individual deity of each of the dif-
ferent Semitic clans, and eventually degraded into one of the figures of the pagan pantheon.
De Moor749 denotes that initially all the tribes of Israel showed a preference for El theophoric
biblical personal names; the popularity for Yahwistic names, however, started much earlier
than the establishing of Zion as national centre of worship of Yahweh. According to MacLau-
rin,750 there is the possibility that the ancestors worshipped Yah – who might have been identi-
fied with El – before they left Canaan. In Egypt the Hebrew slaves probably worshipped El,
who, in the hypostasis of El Shadday, was venerated in Canaan as the God of the fathers.
L'Heureux751 is of the opinion that, as the cult of Yahweh developed historically, and the char-
acteristic features of Yahwism emerged, Yahweh separated from El to become a distinct deity.
As indicated in the evaluation of the hypothesis of Cross, certain aspects of this theory have
merits for the reconstruction of the origin of Yahwism. There is credibility in the thesis of Alt
that the patriarchs venerated a deity known by El-epithets, mainly as El Shadday, also known
as the "god of the father(s)". However, I cannot agree with the suggestion that
746
Cross 1962:227-228, 231-232.
747
Miller 2000a:381.
748
Guillet 1973:206.
749
De Moor 1997:12, 39.
750
Maclaurin 1962:460.
751
L'Heureux 1979:56-59.
400
Yahweh was originally a cultic name or epithet of El, and that Yahweh originated from an El-
figure – thereby suggesting that Yahweh emanated from a Canaanite deity.
I am well aware of the general consensus amongst scholars – and in agreement therewith –
that the Israelite nation practised syncretism, particularly regarding specific Canaanite deities,
such as Ba‛al and Asherah. I also support the view that, although Yahweh was perceived as
the national god of the Israelite nation at a certain stage, he was not venerated in a monotheis-
tic context by the pre-exilic Israelites. My interpretation of the biblical texts is, however, that
Yahweh was the dominant Entity – albeit amongst supporters of the "Yahweh-alone move-
ment". I therefore find it inconceivable – as mentioned above – that Yahweh would have orig-
inated from El, who was in reality a Canaanite deity. As recorded in Exodus 6:3, Yahweh, in
his revelation to Moses, indicated that he appeared to the patriarchal fathers as El Shadday,
but that he did not disclose his proper name, Yahweh, to them. Therefore, for a reason unbe-
known to us – apart from a number of references that may, or may not, be authentic – the pa-
triarchs knew Yahweh mainly by his El-epithets. I thus propose that El was a cultic name, or
an epithet, of Yahweh – not the other way around. The patriarchs who migrated from Meso-
potamia, through Syria to Canaan, would en route have encountered Canaanite El who, there-
fore, would have been a familiar name later. The theory of Cross gives no explanation for the
recurring biblical tradition which indicates that Yahweh came forth from the "South". El was
established mainly in the northern regions of Palestine and Syria.
I furthermore support the theory that inhabitants of, and migrants in, the South became
knowledgeable about Yahweh, and worshipped him, either as Yahu or Yahweh. At a particu-
lar point in time Yahweh disclosed his name – also to those tribes who venerated him as El
Shadday, an epithet of Yahweh.
In agreement with my hypothesis, I theorise that Yahweh was venerated by the Midianites, as
well as marginal southern tribes, such as the Kenites. In the following chapter a number of
these marginal tribes are discussed.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Table 1 and Table 2 – synopsis of characteristics of the
Kenites and synopsis of the Kenite hypothesis – follow hereafter.
401
Table 1. Synopsis of characteristics of, and information on, the Kenites
• Scholars suggest that the Cain narrative of Genesis 4 is the aetiological legend of the
Kenites.
• Cain is therefore also the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites.
• The word Cain – !yq – is associated with Kenite – ynyq; the root qyn means spear, tinsmith,
craftsman.
• Some scholars suggest that "Cain" is another name for the Kenite tribe and is thus their
primal ancestor; other scholars negate such an affiliation, or that the Kenites had any con-
nection with Cain.
• There is, however, no positive evidence that the Kenites associated themselves with Cain
as their eponymous ancestor.
• Heber, the Kenite – identified with the sons of Hobab, Moses' father-in-law – is said to
have separated from Cain; the Kenites and Cain are thus connected in Judges 4:11.
• Many traits of the Kenites could associate this tribe with Cain.
• The Kenites are linked to the three sons of Lamech – and thus to Cain – through their oc-
cupations, namely as tent dwellers who had livestock, as musicians and as metalworkers.
• They were a non-Israelite clan or community.
• There was a close connection between the Kenites and Midianites; the Kenites lived
among the Midianites and might have been a clan of the latter.
• The Kenites are also linked to the Rechabites and to the post-exilic scribes (see 1 Chroni-
cles 2:55).
• They were metalworkers and coppersmiths who may have held a kind of monopoly on
copper mining and the production of copper artefacts.
• They may have been a group of metalworkers who left the Hittite Empire with its downfall
at the end of the thirteenth century BC.
• Metallurgical traditions preserved by, inter alia, the Kenites, could also be traced back to
prehistoric times.
• They made their livelihood as metal craftsmen; as migrating smiths they wandered in the
Sinai, the Negeb, Midian, Edom, Amalek and northern Palestine.
• They probably introduced mining and metallurgy to the Israelites, and maybe even to the
Edomites.
• As nomads or semi-nomads they followed a nomadic lifestyle, alienated from the soil; no-
madic tribes of metalworkers were known from the early second millennium BC.
• They lived in the Negeb, south of Arad; a region in the Negeb was named after them.
402
• They may have "dwelt in the rock" (according to Balaam's song), not far from Punon – one
of the main sources of copper.
• The Kenites are linked to the cities Arad and Kinah in the Negeb.
• The Hebrew Bible refers to the cities of the Kenites in the southern Judean hill country;
probably including Kinah, and possibly Kain on the border of the Wilderness of Judah.
• They entered Palestine with the tribe of Judah and held a recognised place in Israelite soci-
ety; they showed loyalty to Israel during the exodus.
• A raised platform – probably an altar – in the centre of Arad could have been an establish-
ment of the Kenites; it may reflect the priestly background of this clan.
• Moses was probably introduced to Yahweh by Kenite mediation; the Kenites were however
excluded from any official capacity in the cult of Israel.
• Moses borrowed the casuistic type of law from the Kenites.
• Moses probably learned the art of copper crafting from the Kenites, which he employed
when he fashioned the copper serpent.
• The special sign of Yahweh – which could have been a protective tattoo – safeguarded the
Kenites; it was a grave offence to harm them. They thus worshipped Yahweh under his
protection.
• They were known for their blood revenge; this mark of Yahweh obliged them to avenge the
blood of a slain brother.
• Marginal characteristics are attributed to Kenites, Midianites and Rechabites in biblical
portrayals.
403
Table 2. Synopsis of the Kenite hypothesis and relevant aspects
• In 1872 Cornelis P Tiele advanced the idea of the Kenite hypothesis; in 1887 Bernard
Stade elaborated the idea; Karl Budde developed the classic formulation of the theory dur-
ing the late nineteenth century; Rowley elaborated on Budde's hypothesis later during the
twentieth century.
• Budde theorised that a Moses-type figure gained knowledge about Yahweh through his
Kenite father-in-law Jethro – a Midianite priest, who, according to tradition, worshipped
Yahweh.
• After his initiation into the cult of Yahweh, Moses was confronted by Yahweh himself from
the burning bush.
• Moses – who was thus initiated into Yahweh-worship by Jethro – introduced Yahweh to a
group migrating from Egypt to Palestine; he equated Yahweh with their divine ancestral
traditions.
• This group later acquainted the tribes of Judah with Yahweh.
• The Midianite priest Jethro, was a priest of Yahweh in a unique capacity; see Exodus 18:1,
7-12.
• Jethro rejoiced for all the good Yahweh had done to Israel, declaring that Yahweh was
greater than all the gods (Ex 18:11a).
• Jethro brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to Elohim [or maybe to Yahweh]; E and J
sources are mixed in Exodus 18.
• According to Rowley, Jethro was a priest of Yahweh and offered a sacrifice to Yahweh
[Elohim].
• The burnt offering and sacrifices brought to God by Jethro could indicate that God was
witness to a treaty between the Kenites and Israelites.
• Apart from introducing Moses to the cult of Yahweh, Jethro also gave him practical advice.
• The Kenites – probably a clan of the Midianites – served Yahweh as their god from time
immemorial; the Israelites chose Yahweh as their God.
• Rowley argues that the Israelites accepted Yahweh as their God, mainly on account of his
action to save them from the power of Egypt, and not by Moses' mediation of the Kenite
religion.
• In its classical form the hypothesis, however, assumes that the Israelites became acquainted
with the cult of Yahweh through Moses.
• The Kenites were a roaming, nomadic group of metalworkers who moved as metal traders
along caravan routes to the North; they probably spread their religious belief along these
routes; Heber – the Kenite and a metal craftsman – settled in the North.
404
• Caravan traders from the South crossed the hills of Palestine and travelled to the Jezreel
Valley; the cult of Yahwism could thus have spread through Transjordan and the highlands
of Canaan, along Midianite caravan and trade routes.
• The Midianites – who also venerated Yahweh – were caravan traders, par excellence, cov-
ering vast areas.
• The strong tradition that links the Kenites to Cain as their eponymous ancestor, explains
their metalworking abilities and alienation from the soil.
• The Kenites' association with Cain attributes them, allegedly, with a special protection
mark or symbol of Yahweh.
• The name Yahweh emanated from the southern regions and therefore supports the Kenite
hypothesis.
• Biblical tradition links Yahweh with the South, namely with Sinai, Seir, Mount Paran, Te-
man and Edom; the South was the abode of the Kenites and Midianites.
• The Kenites settled in the Negeb of Arad.
• The Kenite hypothesis is supported by Egyptian data that link Yhw [Yahweh] to the land of
the Shasu; the Shasu are connected to Seir and Edom; the Kenites and Midianites are also
associated with Edom.
• Yahweh came forth from Seir and Edom in southern Transjordan.
• One can therefore deduce that Yhw [Yahweh] was known by the Shasu and probably vener-
ated by them.
• It is thus conceivable that there were Edomites, Midianites, Kenites, and related marginal
groups among the Shasu.
• Some scholars indicate that the Edomites and Kenites were related.
• Mount Sinai was Yahweh's sacred abode; he was worshipped by the people who dwelt in
his territory.
• Yahweh was a Palestinian mountain god worshipped by the nomadic Midianites, Kenites
and Edomites, who roamed the southern regions of Palestine.
• A small unfortified site at Tel Arad could be connected to the Kenites. An Israelite temple
at Tel Arad was built on a possible twelfth century BC Kenite shrine; this shrine would
have been in the middle of the territory and thus well positioned to serve inhabitants of the
eastern Negeb in their cultic practices.
• Midianite epic sources point to the possibility of a pre-Israelite Yahwistic sanctuary in the
mountainous region east of the Gulf of Elath.
• The concept that Moses was introduced to the cult of Yahweh by the Kenites/Midianites
thus contends that Yahwism has Kenite/Midianite roots.
405
CHAPTER 6
RECHABITES AND ANALOGOUS MARGINAL GROUPS
6.1 Introduction
In accordance with my hypothesis, I advance that the Kenites, and marginal groups who were
seemingly related – such as the Rechabites, Calebites, Kenizzites, and others – played a sig-
nificant role in the preserving of the pre-exilic Yahwistic religion. In the previous chapter I
discussed the Kenites and the Kenite hypothesis – the latter which theorises that the Kenites
introduced Yahweh to Moses. In this chapter a number of relevant nomadic marginal groups
are deliberated.
From the point of view of historical credibility, Budde 1 regards the narrative in 2 Kings 9 and
10 – concerning Jehu – as of the best parts in the Books of the Kings. He suggests that it
could be dated with reasonable certainty to 842 BC. Jehu was responsible for the overthrow
of the House of Omri and the killing of king Ahab's descendants. During his "slaughtering
session" he meets Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, and states, 'Come with me, and see my zeal
for the LORD [Yahweh]'. 2 Budde3 suggests that we may infer from the context that Jehu was
a zealot for Yahweh. The narrator refrains from enlightening the readers who Jehonadab ben
Rechab was; 'his profile was sharply drawn against the background of Israel as that of the
founder of a remarkable sect. He was the representative of the Nomadic Ideal'.4 According
to 1 Chronicles 2:55, 5 the House of Rechab is linked to the Kenites, who led a nomadic life in
the "South". The rule of nomadic life was, thus, not attained by particular observances, but
through descent and history. The Rechabites abstained from drinking wine and were alienat-
ed from the soil – they lived in tents and were migrants. 6 The relevant nomadic descendants
regarded themselves as guardians of the pure Yahweh worship; to them Yahweh was the god
of the steppe and the roaming nomads.
Hosea, prophet of the Northern Kingdom, identified with the features of the nomadic ideal,
'and teaches us its deeper meaning and its conditional justification'. 7 In the tragedy of his life,
the history of Israel and its faithless generations are revealed. 'It almost seemed as if Yahweh
1
Budde 1895:726.
2
2 Kings 10:15-17.
3
Budde 1895:727-728, 730.
4
Budde 1895:727.
5
1 Chronicles 2:55, 'These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.'
6
See Jeremiah 35:6-10.
7
Budde 1895:731. Hosea is dated ca 756-722 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
406
was to disappear in Baal, not Baal in Yahweh.'8 Most of the Israelites did not listen to the
message of Jehonadab ben Rechab. Hosea realised that it was less complicated to serve Yah-
weh purely and exclusively when being in the Wilderness; this form of lifestyle therefore jus-
tified the nomadic ideal. Isaiah, in his prophecy, imposed upon the "remnant" of his people
that which Jehonadab ben Rechab prescribed to his posterity;9 the "remnant" should return to
the nomadic manner of life. Under the influence of the sign in Isaiah 7:14 – 'the Lord himself
will give you a sign' – the young generation to whom the Immanuel belongs, would grow up
and 'refuse the evil and choose the good'.10 The question is whether Isaiah connected himself
to Jehonadab ben Rechab, or whether he was only in agreement with him. The prophet trans-
forms the nomadic ideal and points out its moral religious value. 11
Seale12 mentions that scholarly research has confirmed that many groups of nomads emerged
from the Arabian Desert to settle in the northern parts – stretching from Syria to Mesopota-
mia. Extensive studies regarding the ancient Semitic nomads, furthermore indicate a con-
stantly repeated movement, namely from the centre of the Arabian Desert towards the sur-
rounding regions. Incoming nomads were absorbed in the cities and settled down. The con-
tents of the Hebrew Bible could be understood best in the light of the nomadic tribal culture
of the Hebrews who started off as nomads. Although these roving people hardly left behind
any artefacts, they recorded the past and depicted the present through the composing and re-
cital of poetry – poetry that vouched for the nomad's background and noble ancestry. In both
the Hebrew Bible and the Arabian literature, much attention had also been paid to genealo-
gies.
Biblical genealogies were regarded as accounts of tribal origins and interrelations, while ge-
nealogies in tribal societies often indicated political and social relationships between the
tribes. 13 Johnson14 discusses the purpose of lineages in the Hebrew Bible. He mentions, inter
alia, that family tree lines demonstrate relations that existed between Israel and neighbouring
tribes. Common patronyms are traced back, thereby establishing a degree of kinship. The
Table of Nations – Genesis 10 – intends to show how the whole earth was peopled from the
three sons of Noah. Genealogies, furthermore, establish continuity over long periods of time.
8
Budde 1895:733.
9
See Isaiah 11.
10
Isaiah 7:15.
11
Budde 1895:731, 733, 735, 741.
12
Seale 1974:3-4,18-19.
13
Wilson 1977:1-3, 7-8, 18. See also discussion on genealogies in § 5.2.
14
Johnson 1988:77-80. For a detailed discussion of the purpose of genealogies in the Hebrew Bible, see John-
son (1988:77-82).
407
Lineages of tribes – referred to in 1 Chronicles 2-8 – who no longer existed in the time of the
Chronicler were probably constructed from lists of military leaders. Descent was also appro-
priated to demonstrate the legitimacy of an individual, indicating his connections to a worthy
family. Numerous political and religious leaders were provided with a favourable ancestry. It
is indicative that the most frequent application of the genealogical form in the Hebrew Bible
is found in those writings that emanated from priestly circles. Johnson15 denotes that, despite
the significance of lineage among the ancient Israelites, there are – apart from the Chronicler,
and the Yahwistic and Priestly sections of the Pentateuch – only scattered occurrences of ge-
nealogical material in the Masoretic Text. The Chronicler probably utilised information from
either the Ezra-Nehemiah lineages, or the source that the latter made use of.
'The social organization of West Semitic tribal groups was grounded in kinship.' 16 Kinship
terminology expressed legal, political and religious institutions, while kinship relations de-
fined the privileges, duties, status, rights and obligations of tribal members. 17 A problem for
the ancient large social or political organisations was to transfer the duties and loyalties of the
small kin group to this larger organisation. Biblical traditions include examples of complex
political organisations. 'A tribe is a fragile social body compared to a chiefdom or state.' 18 A
tribe is composed of groups which are economically self-sufficient, and who have taken upon
themselves the private right to protection. 19 Scholars have noted that the lineage – in some
instances – of a member or members of the same family could be traced to different tribes or
clans, depending on where they resided. The descendants of some families therefore held a
"dual identity card", reflecting in the one instance their origin, and in the other a "new reality"
which was effected after the completion of the settlement process. 20 The use of variant desig-
nations for an individual or a population group is also common practice in biblical narra-
tives. 21
Regarding the tribe of Judah, the non-Israelite relationships are conspicuous in the Chroni-
cler's genealogy of this tribe. Descendants of Judah intermarried with Canaanites, who were
regarded by the Chronicler as legitimate members of the tribe of Judah; Canaanite progenitors
15
Johnson 1988:3, 37.
16
Cross 1998:3.
17
Cross 1998:3.
18
19
Mendenhall 1973:179, 184-185.
20
Galil 2001:37.
21
Revell 2001:74. An example of this practice is the reference to Midianite and Ishmaelite traders in Genesis
37:28 – obviously referring to the same group of people.
408
thus contributed to the development of Judah. It is, however, significant that the Chronicler
openly 'exposes the non-Israelite components in Judah's heritage'. 22
Settlement patterns of the Early Bronze II Sinai and Negeb sites indicate that these people
were indigenous inhabitants of the desert. Nomads usually settle down when they have found
a new source of income – such as copper mining. The population of Arad in the Negeb in-
cluded – apart from the local people – merchants from the North, who took part in the thriving
economy of the region.23 The Philistines monopolised the metal industry, 24 explicitly to pre-
vent the Israelites to build up a supply of arms. The Philistine centre for metallurgy was ei-
ther in the Jordan Valley or on the Mediterranean coastal areas. They seemingly had excep-
tional weaponry, as emerges clearly from the description of Goliath's armament.25
McNutt26 indicates that it is difficult 'to reconstruct the intended meanings of the writers of
biblical texts, and how these were understood by their ancient audiences', or 'to observe di-
rectly their socially shared experiences, and how these were expressed in their beliefs'. She
suggests possible scenarios for marginal social groups in ancient Israel, mentioning that
scholars should take cognisance of 'the interdependence and interwoven complexity of the
social, the historical and the spatial as all-embracing dimensions of human life'. 27 McNutt28
aims to elucidate the statuses and roles of peripheral social groups – such as the Kenites, Mid-
ianites and Rechabites. Metalsmiths and artisans tend to form borderline associations that are
normally regarded with ambivalence by the dominant social groups. Power is important in
segmented societies; some segments having more power than others do. Social and political
identity relate – of necessity – to group membership. Territories in these tribal societies are
forms of spatial relations constructed by them. Tribe members identify their own territory
and know when they are among their own people. Smiths and other artisans are both feared
and respected; in some societies they were held in low esteem. Intermarriage with them was
considered dangerous and polluting, best forbidden. 29 Smiths guarded their technical lore
jealously and handed it down from generation to generation. 30
22
Willi 1994:158.
23
24
1 Samuel 13:19-22.
25
Machinist 2000:58-59. See also description in 1 Samuel 17:5-7.
26
McNutt 2002:30.
27
McNutt 2002:31.
28
McNutt 2002:32, 38-40.
29
There may be some allusion to pollution by marginal smithing groups – as the Midianites – in Numbers 25.
30
Frick 1971:285.
409
Some marginal characteristics observed of traditional African and Middle Eastern smiths and
artisans can be perceived in biblical portrayals of the Rechabites, Kenites and Midianites.
Although biblical texts characterise the Kenites as loyal supporters of Yahwism, as well as of
the Israelites, they were never fully incorporated into the Israelite society. They seem to have
been socially peripheral. Their marginal position could have been related to their geograph-
ical separation from the Israelites; their territory is normally identified as south-east of Judah
on the border of Edom. It is, however, unlikely that they would have been associated perma-
nently with a specific region, as they moved between different geographical areas, either as
nomadic or semi-nomadic itinerant metalsmiths, or as caravaneers. According to biblical tra-
ditions, the Kenites and Midianites were related. It is not clear what the socio-political char-
acter of the Midianites was, or their relationship with the Israelites. As a group they were
seemingly geographically on the borderline to Palestine. Material culture from Late Bronze
and Early Iron Age sites – identified as Midianite – includes evidence of both ritual and met-
allurgical activities.31 'The Midianites also play an important mediatory role in the literary
traditions about the exodus.'32
Based on a genealogical link between the Kenites and the Rechabites, 33 scholars postulate that
the Rechabites shared the Kenites' trade as metalworkers. Cain – the eponymous ancestor of
tent dwellers, musicians and metalworkers – is recognised as 'one of the most ambivalent and
clearly marginal figures in the Hebrew Bible', who represents social and spatial marginality in
'those categories of persons in segmented societies who can 'travel' between the 'worlds' of
city dwellers and tent dwellers'. 34 Some scholars suggest that Genesis 4 was originally an
Edomite myth explaining the origins of a group of metalworkers from the copper-mining re-
gion east of the Arabah. 35
McNutt36 explains that members of marginal social groups mostly belong simultaneously to
two or more groups, whose social and cultural norms are often opposed to one another. 37
Their group of origin is the so-called inferior group, while the group in which they mainly
31
McNutt 2002:45-46.
32
McNutt 2002:46.
33
1 Chronicles 2:55.
34
McNutt 2002:48.
35
McNutt 2002:47-49.
36
McNutt 1994:110.
37
See also earlier in this paragraph the reference to "dual identity card" – dual membership – by some family
members.
410
live, is more prestigious. In the latter they aspire to higher status. The question is – with re-
gard to their peripheral position – who the Kenites, Midianites and Rechabites were, and what
roles they played in the biblical narratives relating to the development of ancient Israel. To
analyse their roles and statuses as marginal groups or smiths, and interpret their literary roles
in the pentateuchal narratives, McNutt38 draws on several disciplines, namely biblical inter-
pretation, archaeology, and comparative anthropology. She furthermore indicates that – ac-
cording to her hypothesis – 'the ritual role explicitly attributed to Moses' Midianite father-in-
law is related to the marginal nature of the type of social groups with which he is identified,
and that other members of these groups functioned as religious specialists, and/or as media-
tors in other social realms'. 39
Although biblical terms normally used to identify artisans and smiths are not applied to the
Kenites, Midianites and Rechabites, some connection was made by biblical writers between
these groups and smiths and artisans. Their important contributions in society are pointed out
in some passages in the Hebrew Bible. 40 These verses mention that smiths and artisans were
'numbered among those of high status who were carried off into captivity by the Babyloni-
ans';41 they were therefore – seemingly – highly regarded in the sixth century BC. There are,
however, other passages where smiths – who were responsible for the production of idols –
are portrayed in a negative light.42 Smiths and artisans were, nonetheless, regarded with a
certain amount of respect for their wisdom and skills. 43 With regard to the biblical passages –
referred to above and in the relevant footnote – that mention smiths among the highly valued
men carried off to Babylon, I refer the reader to my hypothesis, and particularly to paragraph
8.8.2. I postulate that these marginal groups with metallurgical skills – such as the Kenites
and Rechabites – played an important role in Babylon in the establishment of an exilic "offi-
cial" monotheistic Yahweh-alone movement.
Throughout Africa and the Middle East marginal status is common for metalworking and oth-
er craftsmen. In West African societies smiths are both respected and feared as bearers of
profound knowledge and power. In East African societies they are perceived as dangerous
sorcerers and often spurned, but also held in awe. Mediatory roles were often assigned to
38
McNutt 1994:110-111.
39
McNutt 1994:111.
40
Examples are 2 Kings 24:14, 16; Jeremiah 24:1; 29:2.
41
McNutt 1994:112.
42
See, for example, Isaiah 44:9-20.
43
McNutt 1994:110-113.
411
individuals from marginal groups. Traditional Middle Eastern Bedouin societies basically
identify with their East African counterparts, where smiths are marginalised. In some con-
texts they are believed to have supernatural powers and function as ritual specialists, healers,
and in other similar capacities. In the course of time, the social status of smiths and artisans
in Israel probably changed and their social separation was not as radical as that during the pre-
monarchical period. In the long run, craft organisations obviously became more centralised
and institutionalised. 'Symbols derived from metalworking in the biblical traditions often
convey information about significant transformations that contributed to Israel's social and
religious identity. … the exodus from Egypt and the Babylonian exile, are symbolized by
reference to a furnace or to the metalworking process'. 44 A kind of transformation is facilitat-
ed by the smith in the ironworking process. McNutt 45 also indicates that, similarly, the Midi-
anites played a symbolic role as marginal mediators in furthering the transitions in the narra-
tive structure of the events enunciated in the Book of Exodus.
In response to McNutt's arguments (above), inter alia, that 'the technology of iron working in
the Ancient Near East was a defining metaphor for the tellers who plotted the shape of the
Pentateuch', 46 Benjamin47 states that McNutt presented a well-balanced piece of research. She
is familiar with social scientific literature on iron working and an active participant in relevant
academic conversations. He agrees that metal working is an important metaphor in the He-
brew Bible, however, not a "defining metaphor". Although smiths are marginal characters,
they are not simply marginalised by being considered magicians. Benjamin 48 therefore agrees
with scholars who suggest 'that smiths themselves decided to live on the margins, rather than
that society forced them into their eccentric lifestyle'. Smiths – such as the Rechabites – re-
frained from drinking wine or beer, in order not to reveal trade secrets when drunk. Similarly,
they lived outside villages in tents as they travelled regularly and as their work was noisy,
dirty and dangerous. He is of the opinion that traditions, as in Jeremiah 35, do not idealise
these smiths – such as the Rechabites. Benjamin 49 does not agree with McNutt 'that the He-
brews would cast these iron workers in such a pivotal role in traditions as significant as the
Pentateuch', although he acknowledges her argument that the Kenites, Midianites and Recha-
bites were smiths, and that they were marginal groups. It is, however, not clear to him
44
McNutt 1994:122. The metaphor of an iron furnace symbolises purification and transformation. See Deuter-
onomy 4:20; 1 Kings 8:51; Jeremiah 11:4.
45
McNutt 1994:118-119, 121-123, 125-126.
46
Benjamin 1994:133.
47
Benjamin 1994:134, 137.
48
Benjamin 1994:137.
49
Benjamin 1994:137.
412
how McNutt visualises the marginality of these groups to function in the Pentateuch. She,
likewise, does not explain how images of Yahweh as a smith link to the Kenites, Midianites
and Rechabites. Benjamin 50 is not convinced that any of the iron working metaphors 'defines
the Pentateuch in particular or the world of the Bible in general'.
Sinai – or Horeb – was named the "Mountain of God", and nomads worshipped there 51 before
the divine call to Moses,52 or the revelation of Yahweh to the tribes who escaped from
Egypt.53 It appears that this mountain was an "extraterritorial holy site", visited by various
tribes and ethnic groups in the area. When the "Israelites" in Egypt expressed a wish to wor-
ship their god, they indicated it would be a 'three days journey into the Wilderness'; 54 thus a
place far from the settled region. According to Numbers 10:33, this holy place is called the
"Mountain of Yahweh". Elohistic tradition probably later changed it to the "Mountain of Elo-
him". Consistent with the Pentateuch, Elohim – alternated with the name Yahweh – reveals
himself on this specific mountain, called Sinai or Horeb.55 Ancient poems mention several
places in the Sinai desert as places of the theophany of Yahweh.56 The existence of Yahweh-
worship among the Kenite/Midianite tribes in the Wilderness area is supported by Egyptian
records.57 The later aniconic tendency of Israel's religion was characteristic of the cult of no-
mad tribes in the Wilderness of Sinai and southern Palestine. It therefore seems that a tribal
league existed at Sinai. 58 Scholars maintain that the Sinai covenant traditions have a northern
origin. It is unlikely that this covenant could have held the Israelites together as the
knowledge thereof, and obedience to it, were a priority among only a few Israelites. 59
An ongoing debate amongst scholars concerns the questions, what the religious roots of the
Israelite nation were, and how they found their God Yahweh. 60 McCarter61 indicates that ear-
ly biblical poetry62 reflects the origins of Yahwism. In these poetic texts Yahweh is
50
Benjamin 1994:141.
51
Jethro, the Midianite priest, went to the Mountain of God, to bring a burnt offering and sacrifices to God, and
partake in a holy meal 'before God' (Ex 18:12).
52
Exodus 3:1.
53
Exodus 4:27; 18:5.
54
Exodus 3:18; 5:3.
55
Exodus 19:2-3, 11-13, 16-20.
56
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4-5; Psalm 68:7-8. See also discussion in § 5.3.
57
See discussions in § 2.6, § 4.3.4 and § 5.3, concerning these Egyptian records, referring to Yhw, the Shasu,
Seir and Edom.
58
Weinfeld 1987:303-311.
59
Cook 2004:18, 23.
60
Shanks 1992:1.
61
McCarter 1992:124-125, 128-129.
62
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4-5; Psalm 68:8-9; Habakkuk 3:3-7.
413
consistently portrayed as a warrior marching from the south-east; Mount Sinai being the prin-
ciple place of his theophany. It is, however, significant that there was a persistent Sinai tradi-
tion, notwithstanding a natural tendency to eliminate this tradition, transferring the theophany
of Yahweh to a place within the Promised Land – specifically Jerusalem. The Hebrew Bible,
however, itself suggests that Yahwism originated south and east of Judah.
Considering an inscription63 found at Tell Deir ‛Allā64 in the eastern Jordan Valley, Hackett65
suggests new ways to view religious traditions in Transjordan. This inscription refers to the
seer Balaam. According to the incident described in Numbers 22-24, Balaam is presented as
a worshipper of Yahweh. Balaam is requested to curse Israel, but repeatedly indicates that he
can only say what Elohim or Yahweh "puts in his mouth". Some verses, however, portray him
negatively and 'the really positive note is sounded only in the passages where Balaam attrib-
utes his oracles to the deity, and particularly when he says the deity is Yahweh', 66 and that he
'could not go beyond the command of the LORD [Yahweh] my God'.67 Although Numbers
suggest that Yahweh was venerated by Balaam, the Deir ‛Allā inscription does not refer to
Yahweh. The gods mentioned are ’lhn – perhaps El – and šdyn, the latter which is obviously
the plural of the divine name Shadday.
Cook68 denotes that 'scholarly revisionists and challengers now question the historical roots of
Israel's traditional covenantal faith', but, in his research of the actual roots of Israel's covenan-
tal beliefs, he determined that they were 'not the product of a long history of Israelite religious
and cultural development, but an early, minority perspective from outside Israel's and Judah's
central state culture'. For a long time scholars have accepted 'theories of evolutionary devel-
opment in Israelite religion'69 from polytheism to monotheism. Cook70argues that although
prophets – such as Hosea – advocated a Yahweh-alone worship, true monotheism only
emerged at the time of the Babylonian exile. He disagrees with the general view that biblical
63
The inscription is written in black and red ink on plaster, which was presumably applied to a stele and then
hung on a wall. The inscription, written in Aramaic script, was damaged during an earthquake. On palaeograph-
ic grounds, it is dated the end of the eighth century BC. For an elucidation of the inscription, see Hackett
(1987:125-126).
64
Tell Deir ‛Allā is one of the most prominent ancient mounds in the Jordan Valley. It is situated north-east of
the junction of the Jabbok and Jordan rivers. Many scholars identify this site with biblical Succoth (see also
footnote in § 2.7). It was probably an open-air sanctuary which was destroyed in the early twelfth century BC.
During Iron Age I a metalworkers' village existed on the site (Negev & Gibson 2001:138).
65
Hackett 1987:125-128.
66
Hackett 1987:127. See Hackett (1987:126-128) for different versions and interpretations of the Balaam tradi-
tion.
67
Numbers 22:18.
68
Cook 2004:1.
69
Cook 2004:3.
70
Cook 2004:4, 10-13.
414
Yahwism evolved out of Canaanite religion and developed under influence of prophets into
the present form of "universal monotheism". The Israelite society and culture were complex
and diverse and did not develop as a whole towards monotheism. Yahwism, as portrayed in
the Hebrew Bible, was probably 'only one religious perspective among many in ancient Is-
rael'.71 The Hebrew Bible itself indicates that the Israelites and rulers did not follow religious
practices as advanced by biblical Yahwism; this was preserved and proclaimed only by small
groups of families, prophets and priests. By examining the writings of prophets, such as Ho-
sea and Micah, biblical Yahwism could be traced back to the eighth century BC. The tradi-
tions and beliefs of biblical Yahwism were preserved by these prophets, as well as by groups
– resembling some communities in the Israelite society – in their manner of living, despite
changing social situations.
True Yahwism is that which Yahweh intended for the Israelites – not that actually practised by
them. 'Groups of tradition bearers … promulgated the tenets of biblical Yahwism in the face
of the wider Israelite culture's polytheism, and they passed down these tenets over the course
of Israel's history in the land'. 72 Biblical Yahwism is associated mainly with Deuteronomy,
and books linked to Deuteronomy. 73 It is furthermore concerned with the relationship be-
tween God and his people. Cook74 mentions that the widespread use of cultic images in the
Canaanite religion involved the belief that gods were forces close to nature; Yahweh, howev-
er, was separate from nature and controlled it from afar. He indicates that 'God is numinous,
unattached to natural phenomenon, and incomparable to earthly beings.'75 Cook,76 further-
more, contends that 'archaeological evidence suggests that this view of God may not be a late
development out of Canaanite religion, as many scholars argue today'. Standing stones that
are found throughout the Negeb may thus not be a heritage of Canaanite worship, but perhaps
that of Midianite and Kenite cultures. 77
Cook78 also denotes that biblical Yahwism could be identified as a theological tradition, des-
ignated "Sinai theology" – thus a covenantal belief. According to this tradition, sole alle-
giance was owed to Yahweh. Partisans of this theology 'were minority groups at the periphery
71
Cook 2004:11.
72
Cook 2004:16.
73
Scholars have linked the Deuteronomist to the editing of the books of Joshua through to 2 Kings. Similarly,
the books Jeremiah, Hosea and Malachi have strong affinities with Deuteronomy (Cook 2004:16-17).
74
Cook 2004:36.
75
Cook 2004:36.
76
Cook 2004:36-37.
77
Cook 2004:37.
78
Cook 2004:267-277.
415
of society',79 who lived in both the northern and southern kingdoms. These groups assisted in
the reforms of kings Hezekiah and Josiah, who thereby granted recognition to their theology
and incorporated some of their members within the official Temple and palace circles. Mi-
nority groups furthermore participated in the instigation to place the Sinai theology at the cen-
tre of the late monarchical Judean society. Eighth century BC prophecies of Hosea and Micah
are excellent examples of the implementation of the Sinai theology; both these books hint of
an archaic heritage. Both prophets were also members of an alienated minority group who
strove to preserve a village-orientated lifestyle, as well as the Sinai traditions. A degree of
tension existed between powerful families who linked themselves to the royal court and con-
servative members of dominant lineages, represented by their elders. Hosea drew, for in-
stance, supporters from conservative Levites who were – despite an authentic genealogical
pedigree – disenfranchised. A distinction exists, likewise, between groups of Levites – name-
ly those who trace their descent from the Elides of Shiloh – and the Aaronide line of priests,
particularly those known as the Zadokites. The latter priests contributed to books in the Mas-
oretic Text, while the former played a significant role in preserving the Sinai theology. In his
research, Cook80 came to the conclusion that scholars face a complex task in an endeavour to
trace the social roots of biblical Yahwism.
According to Wittenberg,81 a plausible reconstruction of the historical events – concerning the

"Yahweh-alone movement" – that led from the deuteronomic movement to the reform of Josi-
ah82 can be traced through four successive phases. The opposition against Ba‛al worship in
the Northern Kingdom by the prophets Elijah and Elisha could be regarded as the oldest
phase. The second phase involves the prophecy of Hosea, which is a reliable witness to the
intentions of the Yahweh-alone movement, even though the movement had little influence.
The fall of Samaria in 722 BC initiated the third phase when supporters of this movement fled
to the Kingdom of Judah. The most important and last phase was reached during the Josianic
reform in 622 BC. At this stage there were supporters of the Yahweh-alone movement at the
court in Jerusalem and among the priests in the Temple. During this phase drastic measures
for renewal were implemented.83 With the reform of Josiah, that which previously had been
the view of the minority opposition, now became dominant in Judah. Wittenberg 84 argues
79
Cook 2004:267.
80
Cook 2004:270.
81
Wittenberg 2007:129-130, 133, 136.
82
Josiah ruled in Judah, 640-609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
83
The most important measures of the reform were: centralisation and purification of the cult, and a declaration
of the new order as national law (Wittenberg 2007:130).
84
Wittenberg 2007:136.
416
that the prophets Amos and Hosea were probably considered too radical to be included in the
Deuteronomistic History, as it was only during the Exile that Judahites were willing to listen
to their total messages; redactors obviously left the pre-exilic edition of the Deuteronomistic
History unchanged, omitting these two prophets.
Van der Toorn85 reaches the conclusion that 'the history of Israelite religion is the history of
the interaction of different religious groups and traditions in a culture that was neither politi-
cally nor cultically unified'. Although he suggests that the Kenite hypothesis be maintained in
a modified form, he finds it 'highly plausible' that the Kenites and related marginal groups
'introduced Israel to the worship of Yahweh'. 86 He does, however, maintain that it is unlikely
that such an introduction would have taken place outside the borders of Israel – both Kenites
and Rechabites seemingly dwelled in Northern Israel at an early stage. These groups proba-
bly conveyed the cult of Yahweh to the Israelite tribes after they had entered the latter's terri-
tory.87
6.2 Origin and interrelationships of marginal groups

At the end of this chapter a diagram of possible genealogical links among marginal groups is
included – Figure 5.
6.2.1 Kenites
The Kenites, who are portrayed as a marginal group in the Masoretic Text, are discussed in
detail in Chapter 5; see in particular paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5.
Although the Kenites are referred to only sparsely in the Hebrew Bible, they are linked to one
of the most important events in the lives of the Israelite people, albeit indirectly. According
to the Kenite hypothesis, the Kenites – and the Midianites – were the peoples who introduced
Moses to the cult of Yahweh, before he was confronted by Yahweh from the burning bush.
The Kenites were a nomadic or semi-nomadic tribe of coppersmiths who inhabited the rocky
country south of Arad, an important city in the eastern Negeb. As early as the thirteenth cen-
tury BC they made their livelihood as metal craftsmen. Scholars have identified the Cain nar-
rative of Genesis 4 as the aetiological legend of the Kenites – Cain therefore being their
85
86
87
Van der Toorn 1995:248, 252.
417
eponymous ancestor. Genesis 4:17-22 designates seven generations of the primeval period.
According to this genealogy, Cain's descendants – consistent with the lineage of Lamech –
represent the specific occupational groups with which the Kenites are attributed, namely be-
ing tent dwellers, herders, musicians and metalworkers. Their particular craft required a no-
madic lifestyle, which, in its turn, availed them the opportunity to spread their religious belief.
According to the Kenite hypothesis, they venerated Yahweh. Biblical traditions portray Yah-
weh as coming forth from the South, thus the regions that were inhabited by the Kenites. Ex-
tra-biblical Egyptian records, furthermore, refer to "Yahu in the land of the Shasu"88 – the lat-
ter being identified with Edom and Seir, the vicinities where the Kenites resided. These rec-
ords support the perception that Yahweh – and thus Yahwism – originated from these regions.
The Shasu Bedouins probably had, amongst others, Kenites in their midst. From the Egyptian
records it can therefore be deduced that the Shasu – and consequently also the Kenites – ven-
erated Yahweh in the regions of Edom, Seir, Sinai and the Negeb. The Kenite connection to
Cain implies that they also received a protective "mark" from Yahweh – and were therefore
safeguarded by the sign of Yahweh.
Metalsmiths, who were considered to be from inferior tribes, were, with their families, mar-
ginalised in the socio-economic sphere. Corresponding marginal characteristics are evident in
the biblical portrayals of the Rechabites, Kenizzites and other peripheral clans or tribes. The
Kenites were related to these different groups. In 1 Chronicles 2:55 they are explicitly linked
to the Rechabites. The Kenites are also associated with the Midianites and could have been a
clan of this tribe;89 the Midianites are descendants of Abraham and this wife Keturah. 90 Jeth-
ro, a Midianite priest, was also known as a Kenite. Likewise, the Calebites, Kenizzites and
Jerahmeelites are all from the lineage of Abraham, thereby linking all these peripheral tribes.
Similarly, these groups are connected to Edom, and thus to the Edomites. The Midrash 91 – in
most cases – portrays the Rechabites as descendants of Jethro, Moses' Kenite (or Midianite)
father-in-law. This identification is based on the Rechabites' link with the Kenites in
1 Chronicles 2:55. Certain characteristics ascribed to the descendants of Jethro are thus ap-
plied to the Rechabites in particular Midrashic texts. With reference to their
88
For more information, see § 2.6 and § 4.3.4.
89
90
Genesis 25:1-2.
91
The Midrash is the traditional Jewish method of exegesis. It is their conventional presentation of particularly
the Law in the Haggadah and Halakah, which both contain the biblical text and commentaries to it. The Hagga-
dah is an illustrative parable giving a free interpretation of the Law. The Halakah (or Halacha) is the normative
legal portions of the Midrash (Deist 1990:110, 158).
418
obedience, the Jethroites are presented as models for their loyalty to the Torah; the Rechabites
therefore appear in some of these texts as an example of pious converts. 92
6.2.2 Rechabites
Frick93 describes the Rechabites as 'a group of metallurgists or smiths whose peculiar lifestyle
was derived from their occupational pattern,' and that ~ybkr tyb probably refers to the
"House of chariot riders". They were a puritanical clan-like group who lived as migrants.
Wine-drinking, house-building and vineyard husbandry were religiously prohibited as a pro-
test against the city life of the Divided Monarchy. This way of life was set as an example of
the nomadic ideal. 94 The name Rechab became the patronymic for these devotees of an itin-
erant way of life, who apparently lived as semi-nomads in the Judean Wilderness. The ex-
pression 'Jonadab [or Jehonadab] the son of Rechab, our father'95 could be an indication that
Jonadab, or Rechab, was the establisher of this group, although, according to Jeremiah
35:19,96 it seems that Jonadab, and not Rechab, was actually the founder. As there is no in-
formation on Rechab himself, the name of this "order" might have been in commemoration of
a distant ancestor. The origins of the Rechabites are, however, obscure. The Chronicler's ge-
nealogical notes – 1 Chronicles 2:55 – could be an indication of their heritage. According to
the Chronicler, the Tirathites, Shimeathites and the Sucathites were 'Kenites who came from
Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab'97 It is unlikely that Hammath was the father of
Rechab, and thus the grandfather of Jonadab; Hammath is otherwise unknown as a personal
name and occurs elsewhere only as the name of a town in Naphtali. 98
Abramsky99 denotes that, apart from 1 Chronicles 2:55, there is also the possibility – accord-
ing to the Septuagint – that 1 Chronicles 4, which lists descendants of Judah, might refer to
Rechab.100 It furthermore seems that the tradition of the House of Rechab, as well as its rela-
tion to the Kenizzites and Kenites could date from the days of the Judges. 101 Frick102 supports
the assumption that, apart from the genealogical listing of Judah's descendants in
92
Nikolsky 2002:188-190.
93
Frick 1962:726.
94
Frick 1962:726-727.
95
Jeremiah 35:6.
96
Jeremiah 35:19: '… Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me.'
97
1 Chronicles 2:55.
98
Pope 1962:15. See also Joshua 19:35.
99
Abramsky 1967:76.
100
See particularly 1 Chronicles 4:12: '… . These are the men of Recah'.
101
ca 1220-1050 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:195).
102
Frick 1971:286.
419
1 Chronicles 2 culminating in the reference to the "House of Rechab" in verse 55, 1 Chroni-
cles 4103 alludes to the Rechabites, substantiating the suggestion that they were a guild of
craftsmen. 104 'Biblical material dealing with the Rechabites is quite limited.'105 In 2 Kings
10, 'Jehonadab the son of Rechab'106 is connected to Jehu, 107 just before the latter wiped out
the house of Ahab in Samaria. There is no indication what Jehonadab's alliance with Jehu
was. To place Jehonadab socially, raises a number of problems and possibilities. In his name
the noun nādib108 is combined with a theophoric element. The noun formed on the root n-d-b
was 'used to denote a member of the ruling class of the monarchical period, an administrator
or head of an influential family – in short, a man of position, a member of the urban nobili-
ty'.109 All biblical names containing this particular root belong to members of this social
class; it is therefore unlikely that Jehonadab was an exception. The designation "Jehonadab
ben Rechab" could also merely refer to a descendant of Rechab, and not a father-son relation-
ship. 110 All attested Rechabite names contain the theophoric element yeho or yah, namely
Jehonadab or (Jonadab),111 Jaazaniah, 112 Habazziniah, Jeremiah, Malchijah. 113
The idea that the noun n-d-b denoted a person of the ruling nobility could imply that Jehu –
who was in some way associated with Jehonadab114 – had a connection with the men in the
royal chariotry. 115 The Rechabites probably belonged to a guild of metalworkers who were
engaged in the manufacturing of chariots and weaponry. 116 Jehonadab could thus have been
103
Particularly the references in 1 Chronicles 4:9-10, 12.
104
1 Chronicles 2:55 refers to the scribes from Jabez, and 1 Chronicles 4:9 mentions Jabez in the genealogical
listing. There is no information available on the person Jabez, apart from his abrupt introduction in Judah's ge-
nealogy. It seems that the name is related to "pain" and to "hurt". Some scholars assume that he was the founder
of the town Jabez, and also suggest that he might have been a Calebite scribe belonging to the family of Hur.
Other scholars, however, indicate that the two names cannot be connected, due to insubstantial evidence (Lo
1992:595). The place Jabez was a city of Judah, apparently near Bethlehem. It is only mentioned in connection
with the Kenite families of scribes who dwelled there (Kobayashi 1992:595).
105
Frick 1971:281.
106
2 Kings 10:15.
107
Jehu ruled as king in the Northern Kingdom – after Joram – ca 841-813 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
108
According to Holladay (1971:228), bdn refers to a "volunteer', or in the verbal sense, "to offer voluntarily".
109
Frick 1971:282.
110
Frick 1971:282.
111
The name Jonadab means "Yahu is liberal", "Yahu is noble" or "Yahu has impelled". This name – or alterna-
tively, Jehonadab – appears in 2 Samuel 13:3, 5; 2 Kings 10:15, 23; Jeremiah 35:6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18-19. Con-
cerning the Rechabites, he was the first ultra-conservative of this group who advocated and maintained their tra-
dition during the Monarchical Period ( Ward 1962b:964).
112
Jaazaniah means "Yahu hears". An alternate for the name is Jezaniah, as in Jeremiah 40:8; 42:1. It was ap-
parently a common name during the early sixth century BC. Jaazaniah, the son of Jeremiah – not the prophet –
was a Rechabite who was tested by the prophet Jeremiah during Jehoiakim's reign (Ward 1962a:777). Jehoiakim
ruled ca 609-597 BC in Judah (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
113
Pope 1962:16.
114
See § 6.3 for more information on this connection. See also 2 Kings 10.
115
Frick 1962:727.
116
420
either a chariot maker or a chariot driver. 117 The only Rechab mentioned prior to Jehonadab
appears in 2 Samuel 4. This Rechab, and his brother Baanah, were captains of raiding bands
under Saul's son Ish-bosheth. They were the 'sons of Rimmon a man of Benjamin from
Beeroth'. 118 "Ben" – or son – in this instance could be an indication that the specific person
was a member of an occupational group or guild. 119 Heads of such guilds were given the des-
ignation "father", while apprentices were called "sons". Texts from Ugarit mention a special-
ist group in royal service who were chariot makers or wainwrights. The designation ben
rēkāb may thus be an indication that Jehonadab was a member of such an occupational
group.120 Chariot squadrons were introduced into the Israelite army during the time of Solo-
mon.121
Van der Toorn122 mentions that some scholars have suggested that the Rechabites were origi-
nally named after Rakib-El,123 known to have been a deity of the kings of Sam’al, a Neo-
Hittite dynasty in South-east Anatolia. Scholars have also proposed that Rakib-El is connect-
ed to the epithet "Rider-of-the-Clouds". Van der Toorn,124 however, does not agree with the
hypothesis that links Rakib-El to the Rechabites. He indicates that the Rechabites were – ac-
cording to biblical tradition – staunch defenders of a Yahwistic religion; other gods would not
have been recognised.
Apart from being related to the Kenites and the scribes of Jabez – the Tirathites, Shimeathites
and Sucathites – the Rechabites are presumably also linked to Ir-nahash in the genealogy of
Judah.125 Ir-nahash,126 the "Serpent City", was also known as the "City of Copper"; some
scholars have suggested the reading "city of smiths or craftsmen". 1 Chronicles 4, in addition,
connects the Rechabites to other craftsmen, such as Joab, 127 a Kenizzite, the father of
117
Frick 1962:727.
118
2 Samuel 4:2. The Hebrew Bible mentions that Beeroth was part of Benjamin.
119
"Ben", in this sense, would be comparable to the Akkadian terms māru and aplu, which means that the partic-
ular person was a member of an occupational group or guild (Frick 1971:282).
120
Frick 1971:282-283.
121
Negev & Gibson 2001:535. 1 Kings 10:26. Solomon reigned 971-931 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
122
Van der Toorn 1999c:686-687.
123
The deity Rakib-El is not well known; the name occurs a number of times in Phoenician and Aramaic inscrip-
tions. The deity might also have been associated with the storm god Hadad – also known as Ba‛al; the latter was
designated by the epithet "Rider-of-the-Clouds" (Van der Toorn 1999c:686).
124
Van der Toorn 1999c:686-687.
125
1 Chronicles 4:12, 'Eshton fathered Beth-rapha, Paseah, and Tehinnah, the father of Ir-nahash. These are the
men of Recah'.
126
Ir-nahash (Irnahash): see footnote in § 5.2.
127
421
Ge-harashim128 – the "Valley of Craftsmen" – as well as 'the clans of the house of linen work-
ers at Beth-ashbea', 129 and 'the potters who were inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah. They
lived there in the king's service'. 130 The Tirathites, Shimeathites131 and Sucathites who dwelt
in Jabez were from the families – or guilds – of the Sepherites, thus the inhabitants of Qiryat-
Sepher.132 According to 1 Chronicles 2:18-20, 50-55, these three families were also descend-
ants of Caleb; the latter were thus related to the Kenites, and accordingly to the Rechabites.
Wyatt133 mentions that, as the origin of the Kenites – according to an ancient tradition – is
traced back to Genesis 4, indicating Cain as the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites, he (Cain)
'would be the ultimate ancestor of the Rechabites of the Old Testament, who appear as a para-
digm for devotion to Yahweh'. Knights, 134 however, denotes that scholars do not universally
accept that a link existed between the Kenites and the Rechabites. Van der Toorn135 indicates
that, according to the First Book of Chronicles, the Rechabites were related to the Kenites and
the Calebites and thus also to the Kenizzites, seeing that the Calebites were a Kenizzite clan.
Nolan136 suggests that the narrative material in Joshua 137 concerning Rehab [or Rahab], the
harlot of Jericho, is the aetiological legend of the Rechabites and, consequently, that Rahab is
the eponymous ancestor of this tribe. She hides Joshua's spies, lies to the king of Jericho to
protect the spies, and thereby saves the lives of Joshua's men. 138 Rahab repeatedly refers to
128
Ge-harashim, known as the "Valley of Craftsmen", was in the vicinity of Lod and Ono on the southern border
of the Plain of Sharon. This valley is possibly the modern Wadi esh-Shellal on the main road between Joppa and
Jerusalem. In 1 Chronicles 4:14 Joab of Judah – of the lineage of Kenaz – is represented as the founder (or fa-
ther) of this community of craftsmen. According to Nehemiah 11:31-35 this valley was resettled by Benja-
minites after the Exile. The origin of the name in uncertain, but could refer to an earlier Philistine iron monopo-
ly (Morton 1962a:361).
129
1 Chronicles 4:21. A family or guild of linen workers who descended from Shelah, son of Judah resided in
Beth-ashbea. It was located in the Shephelah (see footnote in § 2.13, subtitle "Lachish ewer"), in the territory of
Judah. Scholars have suggested a connection between Beth-ashbea and the weaving and dying works discovered
at Tell Beit-Mirsim (Ehrlich 1992a:682).
130
1 Chronicles 4:22-23. Netaim was a town in Judah where royal potters resided. The site is unknown but
might be identified with Khirbet en-Nuweiti, south of Wadi Elah (Williams 1992:1084). Gederah was a town in
the Shephelah (see footnote in § 2.13, subtitle "Lachish ewer"), in the administrative district of Judah; probably
also the location of potters. The name Gederah means "sheepfold". Various possible sites have been identified,
such as Kedron (Ehrlich 1992b:925).
131
The name Shimeathites – a subdivision of the Calebites (1 Chr 2:18-20, 50b-55) – could mean "traditional-
ists". The name, furthermore, may be derived from an unknown person or place. They might also have been
one of the groups of Kenites who settled in the northern regions – either during the time of the "conquest", or in
the northward expansion of the Edomites during the Exile (Mauch 1962a:331).
132
Frick 1971:286-287.
133
Wyatt 2005:86-87.
134
Knights 1992:82.
135
Van der Toorn 1995:234. 1 Chronicles 2:55; 4:11-12. Read Caleb for Chelub, and Rechab for Recah. The
'Rechabites, Kenites, and Calebites need not have been kin-related in order to be presented as such; it suffices
that they be perceived as sharing similar characteristics' (Van der Toorn 1995:234).
136
Nolan 1982:100-101.
137
Joshua 2:1-22; 6:17, 22-25.
138
Joshua 2:2-7, 15-16.
422
Yahweh and relates Israel's history concerning their deliverance from their enemies by Yah-
weh.139 She requests the spies to 'swear to me by the LORD [Yahweh] … that you will save
alive my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and deliver
our lives from death …'.140 The narrator continues that Rahab and her 'father's household and
all who belonged to her were saved … and she has lived in Israel to this day'. 141 Nolan142
states 'that the account of Rehab's aid to Israel is the aetiological account of a recognized
group within Israel that traces its ancestry back to Rehab.' He does, however, acknowledge
that no material specifically links Rahab to the Rechabites, or to the Kenites. Yet, if she were
a Kenite, it could account for the choice of her house by the spies. Likewise, the Hebrew Bi-
ble nowhere explicitly identifies her as an ancestor of David, although Matthew 1:5 – in the
New Testament – names her the wife of Salmon of the tribe of Judah in the Davidic line. The
narrator of Joshua, nonetheless, identified her – according to Nolan143 – as the ancestor of
some group of his day. Such a group would have been recognised easily if they were known
by the name of their ancestor. Although the Hebrew spelling of her name – bxr – differs
from that of Rechab – bkr144 – Nolan145 defends his suggestion – that Rahab is the epony-
mous ancestor of the Rechabites – and mentions that 'the change in the spelling of biblical
names … where the pronunciation remains the same, is not without precedence in the Old
Testament'. Similarly, the name Rechah in 1 Chronicles 4:14 has been suggested also as an
alternative spelling of Rechab.
The Rechabites have no real social parallel in the Ancient Near East. Owing to the historical
distance, an often-cited Nabatean146 group – mentioned by Diodorus of Sicily – is no true
counterpart.147 At the end of the fourth century BC Diodorus referred to the asceticism of the
Nabateans. The terminology he used corresponds with that which Jeremiah applied to de-
scribe the Rechabites. 148 Although there is no indication of a connection between these two
groups, there might have been parallels to biblical asceticism amongst ethnic groups that had
139
Joshua 2:9-12.
140
Joshua 2:12.
141
Joshua 6:25.
142
Nolan 1982:102.
143
Nolan 1982:105-106.
144
Nolan 1982:102-106.
145
Nolan 1982:106-107.
146
The origin of the Nabateans remains controversial. The connection with the Ishmaelite tribe of Nebaioth – as
mentioned in the Hebrew Bible – has been rejected on linguistic grounds. They probably originated from the
Aramaic-speaking world, being a subtribe from the sphere of the Persian Gulf. The were centred at Petra (see
footnotes in § 2.6, § 3.7 and § 5.2) by 312 BC. They established themselves as merchants in the aromatic trade
from southern Arabia. Their native language was an Arabic dialect (Graf 1992:970, 972).
147
Frick 1962:727.
148
Description of the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35.
423
settled in the South and in Transjordan. 149 As in the case of the Rechabites, the blending of
elements of the Canaanite cultus with that of their own religion was totally rejected by the
Nabateans and Arabians.150
The Rechabite lifestyle is the normal way of nomads. They dwelled in tents in opposition to
sedentary culture. Agriculture was regarded as "unmanly and degrading". Total abstinence
from wine was an attempt to preserve the conditions of nomadic life; wine was unknown.
The Rechabites might have influenced the vow of the Nazirite, prohibiting the consumption of
wine. 151 Abramsky152 is of the opinion that the Rechabites could have been the "heirs" of the
Nazirites. Frick, 153 however, disagrees and mentions that 'there is no evidence that the Rech-
abites' peculiar lifestyle had its basis in a conscious religious protest like that of the Nazirites'.
Knights,154 moreover, indicates that earlier views of scholars, that "ancient tribal asceticism"
ultimately originated from the desert origins of Yahwism, have been decisively challenged.
According to Milgrom,155 a Nazirite – rzn156– is a person who vows to abstain from the con-
sumption of grapes or any of its products, as well as from cutting his hair or touching a
corpse, for a specific period.157 This subject is dealt with in the Priestly Code158 in the He-
brew Bible. As a Nazirite, the layman is given a status resembling that of a priest; he is dis-
tinguished by his uncut hair. In Israel, Samson and Samuel were lifelong Nazirites. 159 The
Mishnah160 and the Talmud, 161 however, discern between a lifelong Nazirite and a "Samson
Nazirite". According to the rabbis, Samson – unlike the lifelong Nazirite – was not allowed to
thin his hair, even when it became too heavy. On the other hand, he was permitted to touch
the dead. The rabbis, however, discouraged the Nazirite lifestyle 'since asceticism was
against the spirit of Judaism'. 162 This reaction by the rabbis was obviously a protest against
the excessive mourning after the destruction of the Second Temple, when large numbers of
Jews became ascetics. 163
149
Abramsky 1971:1611-1612.
150
Kittel 1905:481.
151
Pope 1962:15-16.
152
Abramsky 1967:76.
153
Frick 1971:286.
154
Knights 1992:82.
155
Milgrom 1971:907-908.
156
rzn means to separate or dedicate oneself; live as a nāzîr; accept the obligations of Nazirite (Holladay
1971:232-233). See also footnote in § 3.5.
157
See Leviticus 15:31; Numbers 6:2-5.
158
Numbers 6:1-21.
159
Judges 13:5; 1 Samuel 1:28.
160
161
162
Rothkoff 1971:909.
163
Rothkoff 1971:909.
424
Knights164 analyses the suggestion by scholars that the Essenes were the descendants of the
Rechabites. This matter, as well as the Therapeutae, is discussed in paragraph 8.8.2.
Van der Toorn165 argues that 'the Rechabites present a suitable entry into the matter of reli-
gious pluralism. Whether they were a sect, a religious order, or a group of itinerant craftsmen
… , they do attest to the cultural diversity within early Israel'. Jeremiah 35 is the main source
of information concerning the Rechabites. This chapter describes a meeting of the prophet
Jeremiah with representatives of the Rechabites in the Jerusalem Temple during, approxi-
mately, 600 BC. A clan of the Rechabites was brought to the Temple 166 where Jeremiah in-
vited them to drink wine. The Rechabites, however, refused, as 'we will drink no wine, for
Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, "you shall not drink wine, neither you
nor your sons forever. You shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not
plant or have a vineyard; but you shall live in tents all your days, that you may live many days
in the land where you sojourn". We have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our
father, in all that he commanded us … . We have no vineyard or field or seed, but we have
lived in tents and have obeyed and done all that Jonadab our father commanded us'.167 Jere-
miah – as instructed by the word of Yahweh – sets the Rechabites as an example for the Jude-
ans and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and pronounced that disaster will be brought upon the
Judeans and citizens of Jerusalem. 168 Regarding the House of the Rechabites – on account
thereof that they followed the command of Jonadab, their father – Yahweh declared that 'Jon-
adab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me'. 169
The expression in the previous paragraph, 'shall never lack a man to stand before me', 170 in-
terpreted as a promise to sacerdotal service, ties in with the Jewish tradition 'that the Recha-
bites came to be connected with the temple by connubial ties with priestly families'; 171 they
thus entered the Temple service by the marriage of their daughters to priests. 172
164
Knights 1992:81.
165
166
'… Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, son of Habazziniah and his brothers and all his sons and the whole house
of the Rechabites' (Jr 35:3).
167
Jeremiah 35:6-10.
168
Jeremiah 35:12-17.
169
Jeremiah 35:18-19. The expression, 'shall never lack a man to stand before me', or the expression "to stand
before the Lord (Yahweh)", usually connotes sacerdotal service in the Temple (Pope 1962:16).
170
Jeremiah 35:19.
171
172
Pope 1962:16.
425
Furthermore, the Greek version of Psalm 70 in the Septuagint 173 probably places the Recha-
bites in circles of the Levite Temple singers. In his Ecclesiastical History Eusebius174 refers
to Rechabite cult personnel. 175 The Rechabites and the Levitical priests had a parallel status,
both being "resident aliens", who lived as sojourners. 176
Seale177 mentions that the Rechabites were as fervent for their nomadic traditions as for Yah-
weh. Jeremiah's description of them178 is identical to that of the Amurru 179 – a group of Se-
mitic nomads who dwelled in the Syro-Arabian desert. They had no grain, houses or towns.
The Rechabites should be recognised for the nomads they were, and not be dismissed as a
sectarian faction. Abramsky180 points out that 'their character as a religious sect dates only
from the time of Jonadab'. They should, however – according to Van der Toorn181 – not be
presented as "missionaries" of a nomadic lifestyle, and would not have been recognised as a
separate group, had all of Israel adopted their customs.
Frick182 denotes that 'the labelling of the Rechabites as nomads' is based on particular assump-
tions, namely their tent-dwelling, their disdaining of agriculture, and particularly – as their
distinctive trait – abstinence from any intoxicants. These characteristics are not necessarily
peculiar to a nomadic society. The Rechabite discipline could be interpreted as characteristic
of a guild of craftsmen, specifically appropriate to smiths. Their lifestyle does not, by defini-
tion, present an idealised desert life; similarly their obedience to discipline and their non-
agriculture mode of life were occupational norms, and not a religious vocation. 183
The Rechabites, Kenites and Calebites are all connected with the area on the border of Judah
and Edom – south-east of Palestine; this leads to the hypothesis that non-Israelite groups were
instrumental therein to introduce the cult of Yahweh into Judah and Israel. Before they
173
LXX Psalm 71 (Van der Toorn 1995:252); LXX is also known as the Septuagint.
174
Eusebius of Caesarea is dated ca 260-339 (Lyman 1990:325). See also footnotes in § 3.5 and § 3.7.
175
In his Ecclesiastical History (II.23.17) – translated by K Lake; see Van der Toorn (1995:252) for bibliograph-
ical details – Eusebius mentions, 'and while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab,
the son of Rechabim, to whom Jeremiah the prophet bore witness, cried out … ' (Van der Toorn 1995:252).
176
177
Seale 1974:17-18.
178
See Jeremiah 35.
179
The term "Amurru" refers to geographical areas lying west of Mesopotamia, and also refers frequently to in-
habitants of the western regions (Mendenhall 1992a:199). See footnote in § 4.3.7.
180
Abramsky 1971:1611.
181
182
Frick 1971:284-285.
183
Frick 1971:285, 287.
426
eventually merged with the Judeans, the Rechabites had lived in a kind of symbiosis with
them.184 It seems that the "House of Rechab", as a clan, later dwelled in permanent settle-
ments in the Judean hills, south of Jerusalem, rather than in the desert or on the desert fring-
es.185 According to references in the Hebrew Bible, Rechabites, as well as Kenites, settled –
or sojourned – in Northern Israel. 186
As mentioned earlier in this chapter – paragraph 6.1 – Van der Toorn187 indicates that the his-
tory of the Israelite religion denotes an interaction of different religious groups and traditions
in a particular 'culture that was neither politically nor cultically unified'. The Rechabites were
one of these religious groups. They withstood the religious pluralism of the Israelite society
and began to observe their ancestral customs vigorously. Their lifestyle was a message of
protest and resistance. They were, however, not merely a phenomenon of social opposition,
or an order of religious fanatics, but 'were a socially distinct minority group with religious
convictions that are [were] part of their identity'. 188 Although the Rechabites were a clan and
the prophets a guild, the structure of these two groups could have been similar. Scholars ar-
gued earlier that the Rechabites were a prophetic school rivalling the school headed by Eli-
sha.189 According to Frick,190 the Rechabites supposedly represented an ideal which was
adopted by the prophets. Cook191 indicates that the Book of Micah reveals much about the
social roots of biblical Yahwism. The prophet Micah 192 carried these traditions – the Sinai
theology – during the eighth century BC into Judah. Cook193 defends the thesis 'that Micah,
his support group, and his forebears closely parallel the kin-group elders on noncentralized,
non-state societies'. The prophet Hosea194 – like Micah – also highlights the Sinai covenantal
assembly. His focus – as a Levite – was on liturgy and cultic worship. His theological tradi-
tion originated centuries before his time, and the social roots thereof extended deep into Is-
rael's lineage-based, village-era society. 195
184
Van der Toorn 1995:234-236, 246.
185
Abramsky 1967:76.
186
See, for instance, Judges 4:11 (Heber the Kenite); 2 Kings 10 (Jehu and Jehonadab, the son of Rechab).
187
188
189
Both the Elisha prophets and the Rechabites claimed succession to Elijah. As the Elisha group lived in hous-
es, the Rechabites observed that they had lapsed from the prophetic ideal of poverty. The Rechabites 'remained
steadfast in their obedience to the standards set by Elijah' (Van der Toorn 1995:232).
190
Frick 1971:280.
191
Cook 2004:195.
192
Micah is dated ca 742-687 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
193
Cook 2004:280.
194
Hosea, of the Northern Kingdom, is dated ca 755-722 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
195
Cook 2004:231, 263.
427
6.2.3 Calebites
The name Caleb is derived from the root klb, meaning "dog". Although the literal meaning of
the name has uncomplimentary connotations, it does appear in certain letters, hymns, and oth-
er literature to express somebody's faithfulness – like a faithful watchdog. Three people with
the name Caleb, as well as variant forms Chelub or Chelubai, are distinguished in the Maso-
retic Text. The Calebites are the descendants of Caleb. 196
Caleb, the son of Jephunneh from the tribe of Judah, was one of the twelve spies sent out to
scout the land of Canaan.197 Caleb, together with Joshua,198 brought back a favourable report
to Moses. Caleb was thereby singled out by Yahweh and promised to be brought to the land
of Canaan.199 This promise identified Caleb and the Calebites geographically. Numbers
32:12 identifies Caleb as a Kenizzite;200 the Calebites were a Kenizzite clan. They existed as
a distinct group in southern Palestine. Several genealogies in 1 Chronicles contain the name
Caleb, as well as the possible variant form Chelub and Chelubai. 201 The genealogies in
1 Chronicles reflect inconsistencies of lineage and are confusing in the light of other biblical
information relating to persons named Caleb. 202 Scholars surmise that the Chronicler was not
concerned with details of genealogical consistency. Later additions to the genealogies also
could have disturbed the logic in the lineages. Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, was a Kenizzite
from the tribe of Judah, and gained special status in the biblical narratives.203 Jephunneh is
known only in relation to this Caleb. 204 It seems that Jephunneh was a Kenizzite.205
'Jephunneh's tribal affiliation is ambiguously represented in the Pentateuch.' 206
Caleb, the son of Hezron appears only in the genealogies of Judah. 'The Chronicler does not
attempt to relate Caleb the son of Jephunneh to Caleb the son of Hezron because neither of
them is central to his purpose of establishing a royal and cultic origin in the tribe of Judah'. 207
196
Fretz & Panitz 1992:808.
197
Numbers 13:6.
198
Caleb alone, according to the J-source (Nm 13:30); Caleb together with Joshua, according to the P-source
(Nm 14:6) (Fretz & Panitz 1992:808). J-source and P-source, see § 8.2.
199
Numbers 14:24, 'but my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will
bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it'. See also Deuteronomy 1:36.
200
Van der Toorn 1995:234. See also 1 Chronicles 4:13-15.
201
Chelub, see 1 Chronicles 4:11-13; Chelubai, see 1 Chronicles 2:9.
202
For a discussion of these inconsistencies, see Fretz & Panitz (1992:808-810).
203
Fretz & Panitz 1992:808-809.
204
Numbers 13:6; 34:19.
205
'Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite' (Jos 14:6, 14).
206
Panitz 1992:682.
207
Fretz & Panitz 1992:809.
428
In this genealogy208 Caleb – together with Jerahmeel and Ram – are mentioned as the sons of
Hezron, who is indicated as the son of Perez, son of Judah; in 1 Chronicles 4:1 Hezron seems
to be the son – and not the grandson – of Judah. Caleb married Ephrath, who bore him
Hur.209 Bezalel, the Tabernacle builder, was the grandson of Hur; Caleb was thus his great-
grandfather.210 This Caleb probably appears in the genealogy to introduce Bezalel. 211 The
towns in which the Calebite tribe originally lived are included as names of the descendants of
Caleb, the son of Hezron.212
According to the Masoretic Text and due to an accentual pause, another Caleb is indicated as
the son of Hur in 1 Chronicles 2:50. This textual ambiguity is correctly resolved in transla-
tions – such as the English Standard Version – by reading this pause as a period.213
The Calebites were thus – according to the Chronicler – related to the Kenizzites and the Je-
rahmeelites, all who were linked to the tribe of Judah. 214 Similarly, the Rechabites – and
likewise the Kenites215 – were connected to the Calebites. 216 'In the Chronicles' genealogy of
Judah the non-Israelite relationships are conspicuous.'217 These non-Israelites were obviously
considered to be legitimate members of the tribe of Judah. 218 Willi219 is of the opinion that
1 Chronicles 2:18-24 should not be regarded 'as a competing doublet to 2.42-50a, because the
two passages do not really represent two different Caleb-genealogies'. Neither Jerahmeel nor
Caleb originally belonged to Judah's lineage. Although the Chronicler presents them both as
sons of Hezron, and as brothers,220 this is stated nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. It was
208
1 Chronicles 2:3-5, 9.
209
1 Chronicles 2:19. According to 1 Chronicles 2:24 Ephrathah (Ephrath) bore Ashur for Caleb; this Ashhur
might be the same person as Hur. Ashhur was the father of Tekoa.
210
211
Fretz & Panitz 1992:810. Bezalel was the craftsperson responsible for the construction and furnishing of the
Tabernacle (Ex 31:1-11). According to the priestly tradition he was granted with a divine spirit and particular
skills, knowledge and workmanship. Scholars have suggested 'that the priests may have added his name to the
tradition in order to provide the ancestor of a postexilic family with a prominent place in Israel's sacred history'
(Fager 1992:717).
212
See 1 Chronicles 2:24, 42-52.
213
According to the reading in the English Standard Version, 'these were the descendants of Caleb. The sons of
Hur … ' (1 Chr 2:50), instead of "the sons of Caleb the son of Hur" (Fretz & Panitz 1992:810).
214
See earlier discussion in this paragraph.
215
See 1 Chronicles 2:55 linking the Rechabites and Kenites, as well as 1 Chronicles 2:54-55 seemingly con-
necting the Calebites to the clans of the scribes who lived at Jabez.
216
See 1 Chronicles 2:18-19, 50-51, 54-55; 4:11-12. Read Caleb for Chelub, and Rechab for Recah.
217
Willi 1994:158.
218
Willi 1994:158.
219
Willi 1994:158.
220
'Caleb the son of Hezron' (1 Chr 2:18); 'Jerahmeel, the firstborn of Hezron' (1 Chr 2:25); 'Caleb the brother of
Jerahmeel' (1 Chr 2:42).
429
probably the Chronicler's own contribution to integrate Caleb and Jerahmeel into the genea-
logical framework of Judah. Calebites probably settled in the North and the South, populating
the Bethlehem area. After the Exile they retreated from Edomite pressure in the South and
settled in and around Jerusalem. 221 Herzog and others222 mention that, while the Kenites set-
tled in the steppe land around Arad, other areas were occupied 'by similar groups such as the
Calebites and the Jerahmeelites, who later became attached to Judah'. According to Axels-
son,223 early genealogies indicate that the Calebites were associated with Seir. Traditions,
more or less contemporary with the Egyptian texts224 that link the Shasu, as well as Yhw
[Yahweh] with Seir, connect the southern tribes – such as the Calebites – with Seir and Yah-
weh. Although the Calebites need not have been identical with the Shasu, it seems logical
that they were in some way associated.
Galil, 225 in contrast to Willi's point of view, argues that families, such as the Calebites and
Jerahmeelites, descended from Judah, and that the term "the Negeb of Judah" was initially the
region of these families. In 1 Samuel 30226 David's attack on the Amalekites is described,
referring to the "Negeb of Caleb", the "cities of the Jerahmeelites", and the "cities of the
Kenites" – all of which were in the Negeb. The whole region of the Negeb was later regarded
as a single administrative area. It may, therefore, 'be pronounced that the term "the Negeb of
Judah" served concurrently as an administrative and ethnographic term'. 227 There also might
be 'a possible affinity of origin between the Jerahmeelites and the neighbouring Calebites'.228
Contrary to the Jerahmeelites and other semi-nomadic families, the Calebites were permanent
dwellers in the hill country, and were seemingly the largest and most important of the Ju-
dahite families. 229
The intricate Calebite genealogies in Chronicles230 seem to suggest that there were 'varying
degrees of penetration by Calebite tribes into Judah and subsequent intermingling with that
221
Willi 1994:158-160.
222
223
Axelsson 1987:179.
224
See § 2.6 and § 4.3.4 for information on these particular texts.
225
Galil 2001:41-42.
226
1 Samuel 30:14, 29.
227
Galil 2001:42.
228
Galil 2001:37. According to 1 Chronicles 2:9, 42, Caleb and Jerahmeel – both who descended from Judah –
were brothers.
229
Galil 2001:35-36.
230
1 Chronicles 2 and 4.
430
tribe'.231 Johnson232 argues that Caleb, son of Hezron, is probably the same person as Caleb,
son of Jephunneh. He indicates that Caleb, who is associated with the reconnaissance of the
land of Canaan, received the region around Hebron as a divine inheritance. 233 Hebron itself
was developed as a Levitical city. 234 It is, furthermore, 'evident that the figure of Caleb repre-
sents the incorporation of a foreign strain into the tribe of Judah'. 235 In Numbers 34:19 and
1 Chronicles 2:18 Caleb's ancestry is traced back to Judah, while older sources point him out
as the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, 236 and also as the older brother of Othniel, son of Ke-
naz. 237 The latter was an Edomite clan or chief. 238 Some scholars suggest that both Kenaz
and Caleb are Hurrian names.239
Cook240 denotes that 'it is obviously precarious to base theories upon tribal traditions alone,
and the free application of the genealogical or ethnological key without the support of other
considerations is unsafe. … Traditions … manifest themselves in genealogies, sagas, and in
the stories of heroes, and these classes of evidence require to be studied with equal care for
the light that they may be expected to throw upon each other'.
6.2.4 Kenizzites
Kenaz – son of Eliphaz, firstborn of Esau and Adah241 – is regarded the eponymous ancestor
of the Kenizzites, 242 and also functioned as an Edomite clan chief. 243 The Kenizzites were
listed as one of the ten peoples whose land Yahweh intended to hand over to Abram's [Abra-
ham's] descendants.244 They were a non-Israelite ethnic group who probably entered the Neg-
eb from the south-east. During the onset of the Iron Age, the southern region of the Palestini-
an central hill country was occupied by diverse tribal groups – such as the Judahites,
Calebites, Korahites, Jerahmeelites and the Kenites; the Kenizzites were also one of these
groups. Although – due to a lack of relevant data – the early history of these tribes cannot be
constructed in detail; it is nonetheless clear that they eventually merged to become part of
231
Johnson 1962:483.
232
Johnson 1962:483.
233
Joshua 15:13; 21:11-12.
234
Joshua 21:8-11.
235
Johnson 1962:483.
236
Numbers 32:12.
237
Joshua 15:17; Judges 1:13.
238
Genesis 36:9-11; 1 Chronicles 1:53.
239
Johnson 1962:483.
240
Cook 1906:178.
241
242
Genesis 15:19.
243
Genesis 36:15, 40-42; 1 Chronicles 1:51-53.
244
Genesis 15:18-19.
431
the "Greater Judah". A number of biblical genealogies denote that both Othniel and Caleb
have a genealogical linkage with Kenaz. 245
Archaeological excavations have uncovered mining, smelting and refining operations along
the length of the Arabah, 246 as well as in Sinai, probably from as early as the Bronze Age.
Related activities were also carried out in the region of the Midianites. The Kenites – who
were native to these mining areas – were evidently master smiths, associated with the differ-
ent mining, smelting and manufacturing activities. This craft was most likely introduced to
the Edomites and the Kenizzites. Chronicles247 connect Kenaz (the Kenizzites) and Ge-
harashim, 248 the Valley of Craftsmen. Although the word , in 1 Chronicles 4:14, does
not necessarily mean "smiths", it is used in the Hebrew Bible mainly for those craftsmen who
fashioned metal objects and implements.249 The "City of Copper"250 could be identified with
Khirbet Ir-nahash in the Wadi Arabah, where large copper slag heaps and ruins of small
smelting furnaces have been found.251 According to Kuntz,252 the Kenizzites and Kenites
forged close ties in the region of the Wadi Arabah.
6.2.5 Jerahmeelites
According to Chronicles, Jerahmeel was the son of Hezron, descendant of Judah. 253 The Je-
rahmeelites were therefore not only an integral part of the tribe of Judah, but also one of the
most important clans of that tribe. Despite their significant genealogical link, scholars are of
the opinion that, similar to the Kenites, the Jerahmeelites were probably one of the nomadic
tribes on the border of the region of Judah, and were only incorporated into the tribe of Judah
when the latter had settled. 254 Many scholars thus regard the Jerahmeelites as a non-Israelite
245
Kuntz 1992:17. See Numbers 32:12; Joshua 14:6, 14; Judges 1:13; 3:9.
246
In the Hebrew Bible the term "Arabah" is used to refer to the Great Rift Valley in Palestine, which runs from
the Sea of Galilee in the North, through the Jordan Valley to the Dead Sea, and from there to the Gulf of Aqaba
in the South. It is one of the principal regions in Palestine and for the most part below sea level. This area was
of particular significance as it contained the only iron and copper deposits in ancient Israel. These deposits were
mined and smelted since Chalcolithic times (Seely 1992:321-322).
247
248
See footnote on Ge-harashim in § 6.2.2.
249
Glueck 1940:23. See 1 Samuel 13:19: 'Now there was no blacksmith ( Xrx) to be found throughout all the
land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords and spears".' According to
Holladay (1971:118), Xrx in this text could be translated as "metalworker", "armourer". Holladay (1971:118)
denotes that could also refer to magicians.
250
See reference to Ir-nahash in 1 Chronicles 4:12.
251
Glueck 1940:22-24.
252
Kuntz 1992:17.
253
Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, bore him Perez and Zerah. Hezron was the son of Perez and Jerahmeel
the firstborn of Hezron (1 Chr 2:4-5, 9). Ram, the ancestor of David, was also a son of Hezron (1 Chr 2:9-15).
254
Galil 2001:33.
432
clan, later absorbed into the Judahite tribe. Chronicles, however, lists Jerahmeel as an Israel-
ite clan within this particular tribe. The Chronicler probably wanted to legitimise the descent
of clans – such as the Jerahmeelites – who became part of Judah through absorption and not
by birth. The tribe of Judah – in the person and work of Zerubbabel255 – clearly returned to
post-exilic prominence. Belonging to this tribe was therefore a matter of political pride and
advantage.256
The Chronicler, furthermore, presents Caleb – the son of Hezron, 257 Jerahmeel's father – as
the brother of Jerahmeel. 258 Caleb is elsewhere indicated as the son of Jephunneh. 259 Willi260
mentions that Jerahmeel and Caleb are nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible presented as sons of
Hezron, or as brothers. It is thus probably the Chronicler's own contribution to incorporate
Caleb and Jerahmeel together into the structure of Judah's genealogy. The Chronicler 'con-
stantly bases his picture of Judah on tradition; but he courageously applies and adapts this tra-
dition to his own time'. 261 There is no uniformity in the genealogical list of the Jerahmeelites
and it ranges between two and eight generations. As names of some Jerahmeelite families
appear in the genealogies of certain other families and tribes, it is possible that originally a
kinship also existed between the Jerahmeelites and Calebites.
The inconsistency in the genealogical list of the Jerahmeelites is furthermore illustrated in

1 Chronicles 2:31-35. In the one instance the text denotes that Ahlai was the son of Sheshan
– a descendant of Jerahmeel and his wife Atarah – while a few verses further on it mentions
that 'Sheshan had no sons'. 262 Sheshan thereby gave his daughter in marriage to his slave,
Jarha. Out of this marriage Elishama 263 was a descendant. The latter thus traces his lineage
back to Jerahmeel and an Egyptian slave. The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 2:25-33 is distinctly
structured, with opening and concluding patterns: 'The sons of Jerahmeel … these were the
descendants of Jerahmeel'. 264 The sons of Jerahmeel – and an unnamed wife – are listed al-
ternately in the genealogy with those of Atarah – his "other wife". The organisation of the
Jerahmeelite families, in a given period of time, is thus described. Atarah is called "another
255
Zerubbabel, governor of Judah after the Exile (Hg 2:21).
256
Uitti 1992:683.
257
1 Chronicles 2:9, 18.
258
1 Chronicles 2:42.
259
See discussion of Caleb's genealogy in § 6.2.3.
260
Willi 1994:159-160.
261
Willi 1994:160.
262
1 Chronicles 2:34.
263
Elishama is the last name mentioned in the genealogical list of Jerahmeel. There is no further information
available on this descendant of Jerahmeel.
264
1 Chronicles 2:25a and 1 Chronicles 2:33b, respectively.
433
wife", 265 probably indicating that her descendants essentially did not belong to the Jerahmeel-
ites, but were appended to this family. Some of these descendants had Hurrian names, such
as Sheshan – mentioned above. The exact number of genealogical groups cannot be deter-
mined, as it is not possible to ascertain whether the kinship groups were genealogically
linked, or whether they were extended families. Scholars assume that the Jerahmeelites com-
prised at least twelve kinship groups.266
Scholars identified the name "Arad of the Jerahmeelites", as well as the names Jerahmeel,
Onam and Peleth,267 on a hieroglyphic inscription of Shishak at the entrance of the temple of
Amon – Amun – at Karnak.268 This is a significant extra-biblical reference identifying Arad
with the Jerahmeelites. The Hebrew Bible likewise associates this clan with the Negeb. 269 It
is therefore feasible to assume that the Jerahmeelites dwelled at, or in close proximity to, Ar-
ad in the Negeb – thus in the same vicinity as the Kenites. Some scholars interpret "Arad" –
in the Canaanite Period – as the name of a region, and also identify Arad Beth Yrhm – on the
Karnak inscription – with Tell Malhata.270 During the late eleventh century BC – in the time
of Saul and the early years of David – Jerahmeelite families probably lived in the area of Tell
Malhata. Their tent dwellings or temporary structures are most likely referred to in the He-
brew Bible as 'cities of the Jerahmeelites'. 271 It could be assumed that these families also re-
sided in the Negeb hill country, as well as in other regions of the Negeb. 272 Prior to the Israel-
ites, the dominant ethnic element in the eastern Negeb was the Amalekites, while the Kenites
settled on the steppe land around Arad; the eastern section was thus called the "Negeb of the
Kenites". Other territories were inhabited by groups such as the Jerahmeelites and
Calebites. 273 David – as a fugitive from Saul – came into contact with the Jerahmeelites
265
1 Chronicles 2:26.
266
Galil 2001:34-35.
267
Onam was a son of Jerahmeel (1 Chr 2:26), and Peleth a descendant (1 Chr 2:33).
268
The hieroglyphic inscription contains a list of approximately one hundred and fifty toponyms that were seized
by Shishak [Sheshonq] – king of Egypt – during a campaign in Israel ca 925 BC. The inscription mentions "Ar-
ad Beth Yrhm", as well as the names "Fltm, Yrhm and Ann". For additional information on literary sources per-
taining to this inscription, see footnote 3 in Galil (2001:34). For more information on Amun and the temple at
Karnak, see footnote in § 2.7.
269
1 Samuel 27:10 refers to "the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites", 1 Samuel 30:29 to the "towns of the Jerahmeel-
ites".
270
Excavations at Tell Malhata indicate that the site was occupied during the Middle Bronze Age IIB, and de-
stroyed in the sixteenth century BC – probably by Egyptians. It was rebuilt in the tenth century BC and became
the largest settlement in the Beer-sheba Valley. Shishak probably laid it waste in the late tenth century BC (Galil
2001:39). Tell Malhata is situated midway between Arad and Beer-sheba, close to the richest wells of biblical
Negeb. As one of the most important settlements during several historical periods, it was regarded as Arad's
"daughter" (Negev & Gibson 2001:309).
271
1 Samuel 30:29.
272
Galil 2001:39.
273
Herzog et al 1984:4, 6.
434
during his raids out of Ziklag. 274 In his report David mentions the "Negeb of the Jerahmeel-
ites" – the first historical reference to this clan. 275 These towns were probably located in the
area south of Beer-sheba.276
As the Kenites and Rechabites, the Jerahmeelites practised pastoral nomadism. 277 In contrast
to the genealogical list of the Calebites in 1 Chronicles 2:42-50a, the list of the Jerahmeelites
– 1 Chronicles 2:25-33 – does not include names of any cities. The Calebites dwelled perma-
nently in the hill country, while, in all likelihood, the Jerahmeelites were semi-nomadic – at
least during the period reflected in the list of Chronicles. The reference to the cities – or
towns – in 1 Samuel 30:29 is probably a general reference to Jerahmeelite settlements. Alt-
hough the family of Caleb was the most important, and also the largest, of the Judahite fami-
lies, Jerahmeel enjoyed the status of firstborn among the offspring of Hezron. 278 This descrip-
tion might be an indication of an earlier period when the Jerahmeelites were the largest and
strongest of the families of Hezron. 279
Descriptions, such as "Negeb of the Jerahmeelites", "territory of Benjamin", "district of

Zuph", refer to the territory of a particular family. Regions were divided into sub-areas
named after the extended families, but these specifications did not convey anything relating to
the tribal lineage of the families. The Negeb was later regarded as a single administrative
unit.280 The "Negeb of Judah" probably served as an administrative and ethnographic term.281
Dahlberg282 denotes that the Jerahmeelites, together with other clans, were gradually forced
northwards after 586 BC. This was probably due to Edomite invasions, until such time when
the Edomites settled between the Jewish communities around Jerusalem.
Although references in the Hebrew Bible to the Jerahmeelites are sparse, it seems that they
were an important clan, considering that the Chronicler, in all likelihood, intentionally linked
the Jerahmeelites to the tribe of Judah. As the Chronicler obviously compiled his genealogi-
cal lists in the light of his own time, the Jerahmeelites were evidently a clan – albeit one of the
marginal groups – that had a significant bearing on post-exilic matters. During their
274
1 Samuel 27:5-11.
275
1 Samuel 27:10.
276
Uitti 1992:683.
277
278
1 Chronicles 2:9, 25.
279
Galil 2001:36-37.
280
See 2 Samuel 24:1-9 in this regard.
281
Galil 2001:41-42.
282
Dahlberg 1962b:822.
435
semi-nomadic sojourn in the Negeb they obviously had contact with the Kenites, and subse-
quently with their cult. It could therefore be assumed that they venerated the same god –
Yahweh – as the Kenites did. Together with other marginal groups, they might thus have had
an influence on the establishing of a monotheistic Yahweh-alone religion.
The name Jerahmeel, the king's son, 283 appears in Jeremiah 36.284 The prophet Jeremiah dic-
tated prophecies – including predictions concerning the downfall of Jerusalem and Judah – to
Baruch ben Neriah, the scribe, and devoted friend and secretary of Jeremiah. Baruch wrote
these forecasts down on a scroll. Written in the fifth year of king Jehoiakim of Judah, 285 they
were read to the king, who subsequently destroyed the scroll in a fireplace. He then com-
manded Jerahmeel – the "king's son" – as well as Seraiah and Shelemiah 'to seize Baruch the
secretary and Jeremiah the prophet'. 286 Two seal impressions287 from the First Temple Period,
found at an unidentified place in Judah, contain names and titles that can be identified with
absolute certainty to be Jerahmeel, the king's son, and Berechiah – Baruch ben Neriah, the
scribe. The two seal impressions were done by their owners in their official capacities as ro y-
al office bearer and as scribe, respectively. These seals were probably on official records kept
in the archive. It is significant that the seal of Baruch was found together with those of royal
officials, and raises the question whether he was a royal scribe, or merely the private secretary
of the prophet Jeremiah. 288
6.2.6 Levites
The Levites are not discussed in detail; only their relevance as a marginalised group is pointed
out. To deliberate on every aspect of these people would entail research in its own right.
There were obviously supporters of the Yahweh-alone movement amongst them.
283
This Jerahmeel was a royal officer under king Jehoiakim, assigned to police duties. It is unlikely that he
could have been the actual son of Jehoiakim, since the latter was only about thirty years old at the time of this
particular incident (2 Ki 23:36; Jr 36:9); the king was too young to have a grown son. The title "the king's son"
could possibly denote a low-ranking officer in the royal government. This designation could, however, indicate
the son of a king, other than Jehoiakim (Lundbom 1992:684). Two other persons called "son of the king" who
had performed similar duties, are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, namely Joash (1 Ki 22:26) and Malchiah
(Jr 38:6). Avigad (1979:117) is, however, of the opinion that bearers of this particular title were indeed members
of the royal family. There were many princes who were probably entrusted by kings with different functions,
such as maintaining security at the royal court.
284
Jeremiah 36:26.
285
Jeremiah 36:9. Jehoiakim reigned in Judah ca 609-598 BC (Lundbom 1992:684).
286
Jeremiah 36:26.
287
Parties involved in legal transactions in the Ancient Near East, as well as scribes and witnesses, used different
methods on documents to indicate their presence during transactions. The legal records were normally clay.
Personal cylinder seals – engraved with patterns and signs in reverse order for the correct reading – were im-
pressed on the clay surface. It was common practice to imprint seals on a bulla; this was a small piece of clay
used to seal the string which held the rolled papyrus document together (Avigad 1979:116).
288
Avigad 1979:117. For a description of the two seals, see Avigad (1979:115-116).
436
The deuteronomistic legislation refers to the Israelite clergy simply as Levitical priests,
whereas Ezekiel distinguishes between Levitical priests and sons of Zadok. The latter are
represented as being superior to the ordinary Levites, by reason that they remained faithful to
the Jerusalem Temple, while the Levites, who ministered at various local sanctuaries or high
places – until Josiah's reforms289 – were guilty of idolatrous practices. Ezekiel290 emphatical-
ly declares that the country clergy should be degraded. 291 Fechter292 mentions that it seems
that Ezekiel had been a priest who initiated post-exilic sacrifice in the Temple. By this deed
he 'is equated with Moses who inaugurated service in Israel'. 293 According to Ezekiel, 294 only
Zadokites were allowed to come close to Yahweh. The Levites are portrayed as bearing the
negative results of their sinful behaviour. 295 Fechter296 argues that the author of the Book of
Ezekiel clearly would have been a member of the Zadokites, and therefore obviously be-
longed to Ezekiel's circle. Although they did not practise sacrificial cult, the priesthood prob-
ably remained valid during the Exile. According to older texts in the Hebrew Bible, the Le-
vites initially were not included in the priestly caste; neither did they originally form a tribe.
They were, however, a group separated from the people. 'Therefore, the Levites should not be
considered primarily an ethnic but a social entity.'297
After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the necessity arose amongst the people to
interpret this catastrophe theologically. The deuteronomists' approach was a monotheistic
argument against local shrines; the latter developed out of the regulations about the centralisa-
tion of the cult.298 The Levites 'who probably had put the idea of monolatry on its way to
monotheism', 299 were, however, dropped from the cult. There were, thus, two groups of
priests, each of which considered themselves to be the legitimate Yahweh-priesthood, while
accusing the other group of illegal cult practices. The traditional Temple priests did not – for
reasons of prestige – tolerate the inclusion of the former country priests [Levites]. These
289
King Josiah reigned ca 640-609 BC in Judah (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197). In the eighteenth year of his
reign the Book of Law was found in the Temple (2 Ki 22:3-10); Josiah implemented various reforms in line with
the commandments in the Book of Law (2 Ki 23:1-25).
290
Ezekiel 44:9-15.
291
Kennett 1905:161-162.
292
Fechter 2000:685-688.
293
Fechter 2000:685.
294
Ezekiel 40:45-46.
295
Ezekiel 44:10-16.
296
Fechter 2000:689, 691.
297
Fechter 2000:691.
298
See Deuteronomy 18:6-8; 2 Kings 23:1-20.
299
Fechter 2000:693.
437
arguments, however, did not seem to be very respectable, therefore the deuteronomists based
their debates on theological grounds, namely the illegal practise of foreign cults. Ideas which
developed during the Exile were dependent on the presupposition of a cultic cause for the ca-
tastrophe. Two opinions are combined in Ezekiel 44, namely that the cults at country shrines
were illegitimate, and that the Zadokidic cult was integral at all times. 'This assumption,
however, first occurs in deuteronomistic circles about 550 B.C. The combination of both
opinions, however, is a product of priestly circles, and the results of the book of Ezekiel make
it very probable that the Ezekielian circle might have been the main one, but not the only
one'. 300
Hanson301 questions the significance of the six Levites mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:11, as
well as the addition in verse 12, where they are described as 'heads of the fathers' houses of
the Levites'.302 The intention of the writer seems clear in the elaboration in 1 Chronicles 15:4-
10, 'namely to secure the Levitical pedigree of the priestly families mentioned in v. 11 by spe-
cifically identifying their patronymics with the earliest descendents of Levi'. 303 The list of
Levitical musicians found in 1 Chronicles 16 304 is also elaborated in chapter 15. 305 The par-
ticular attention paid to genealogical reconstructions during the early Second Temple Period
might be an indication of the instability of many Levitical families during that time. In con-
trast to Ezekiel's condemnation of the Levites, 306 the Chronicler composed a history – alt-
hough acknowledging the Zadokite priesthood – that 'demonstrated the important role that
was to be accorded to the threatened Levitical families in the restored temple cult and com-
munity'. 307 The contrast between the so-called unblemished holiness of the priests and the
alleged apostasy of the Levites seems to be refuted explicitly by 2 Chronicles 29:34. 308 The
post-exilic prophet Malachi portrays an unfaithful and corrupt Zadokite priesthood, as well as
a severe Levitical protest.309
300
Fechter 2000:694.
301
Hanson 1992:71, 73-76.
302
1 Chronicles 15:12.
303
Hanson 1992:71.
304
1 Chronicles 16:4-6, 37-42.
305
306
Ezekiel 44:9-14.
307
Hanson 1992:75.
308
2 Chronicles 29:34, '… for the Levites were more upright in heart than the priests in consecrating themselves'.
See also 2 Chronicles 36:14.
309
See in particular Malachi 2:1-9. Malachi prophesied ca 460 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:198).
438
Van Rooy310 furthermore poses the question whether scholars know anything about the
Chronicler's historiographic principles and the value of his sources, as well as the way he ap-
plied these sources. Although attempts are made in Chronicles to describe the history of Isra-
el, 'these descriptions remain interpretations within a certain frame of reference. … . The re-
interpretation in Chronicles remains linked to the context of that time'. 311 The Chronicler
strives to connect the Levites and the prophets; 1 Chronicles 25:1-3 is an explicit example of
such a link between cultic activity and prophecy. Some prophets in Chronicles are also Le-
vites. 312 Temple musicians performed through prophetic inspiration; this prophetic appella-
tion of Levitical musicians was probably initiated by the Chronicler, thereby granting Levites
a claim to a superior status. The Levites, thus, became more important in the hierarchy of the
Second Temple. Davies313 indicates that the Levites of the Jerusalem Temple can be "identi-
fied with some confidence" as the circle amongst whom the Psalms collection was canonised.
Levitical genealogies314 indicate that Moses and Aaron were brothers who descended from
Kohath, the son of Levi. Yet, the question arises whether Moses was a Kohathite – as the ge-
nealogies indicate – or whether he was less closely associated with Aaron, in keeping with the
old narratives, which indicate that he was actually a Gershonite – he called his son Ger-
shom. 315
Taking research done by scholars into consideration, Rehm 316 is of the opinion that the history
of the Levites points to three periods, namely desert, tribal and monarchy. According to the
early traditions of the desert period, the Levites served as priests. Following the Levitic gene-
alogies they were divided into three main groups, the Gershonites, the Kohathites and the Me-
rarites. In this period the Levites encamped around the Tabernacle and took charge of the
transportation, setting up and taking down of it. Although it seems that the Levites were re-
lated by blood, the designation could indicate that this related group had a common function.
The word "Levite" is derived from the term lawiyu which means "a person pledged for a debt
or vow (to Yahweh)". During the tribal period several clans with a common function of the
priesthood could have been joined together to form the tribe "Levi". Joshua's terminology for
priests is the same as that in Deuteronomy; therefore, when he mentions "Levitical priests", it
310
Van Rooy 1994:163, 165-166, 170, 176.
311
Van Rooy 1994:165, 166.
312
Examples are: Jahaziel (2 Chr 20:14-17); Heman (1 Chr 25:4-6).
313
Davies 1998:131.
314
See, for example, Exodus 6:16-20; Numbers 3:17, 19, 27; 26:58-60; 1 Chronicles 6:1-4.
315
Linguistically it is difficult to ascertain whether the name Gershon or Gershom is more original (Rehm
1992:299).
316
Rehm 1992:298, 300, 303.
439
could be a reference to descendants or adherents of Moses. Rehm 317 is of the opinion that the
terms "Levites" and "Levitical priests" are not synonymous in Deuteronomy. In the desert the
Levites got the commission to carry the ark; they therefore became the keepers of the central
sanctuary in the tribal league. 318
As a result of Shiloh's fall, the Levites had to seek employment at various sanctuaries during
the Monarchical Period to support themselves. By the establishment of Levitical cities, Da-
vid, no doubt, tried to help the jobless and homeless Levites. The most significant event for
the Levites during the time of Solomon was the adoption of Zadok as chief priest. 319 During
the division of the kingdom, the northern Levitical cities were separated from Jerusalem.
Probably due to the Levites' close ties to Jerusalem, Jeroboam I appointed non-Levites as
priests.320 As a result of Jeroboam's action some Levites left their homes and went to Jerusa-
lem. They were, however, not received with enthusiasm by the Zadokites. The Levites may
thus have been cut off from the Jerusalem and other southern sanctuaries with limited em-
ployment opportunities. Those Levites who remained in the North probably preserved many
traditions which were later incorporated in the Book of Deuteronomy. Some scholars are of
the opinion that the northern prophet Hosea321 allied himself with the Levites in opposition to
the cult introduced by Jeroboam I.322 The trend of upgrading the Levites began in Hezekiah's
time and was continued by Josiah.323 During this period, Levites in the countryside had the
opportunity to join their fellow Levites who were already in Jerusalem. 324
The prophet Jeremiah – presumably from a priestly family – points out the sins of the priests
and condemns them accordingly. 325 Jeremiah, who calls the priests "Levitical priests" – in
agreement with the deuteronomistic terminology – foresees a time when they will change for
the better and occupy the priesthood forever. 326 His words might have been a polemic against
the Zadokite priesthood of Jerusalem. According to Ezekiel, the only priests eligible for
priestly duties in the "new Jerusalem" are the Levitical priests who were descendants of
317
Rehm 1992:303. For a discussion of the distinction between these two groups in Deuteronomy, particularly,
see Rehm (1992:302-305).
318
Rehm 1992:303-305.
319
1 Kings 2:26-27, 35.
320
Jeroboam I was the first king of the Northern Kingdom (ca 930-910 BC). See 1 Kings 12:25-26, 31.
321
Hosea is dated ca 755-722 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
322
1 Kings 12:25-33.
323
Both were kings in the southern kingdom of Judah; both implemented drastic religious reforms. Hezekiah
reigned ca 718-687 BC and Josiah ca 640-609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
324
Rehm 1992:306-308. Compare also Deuteronomy 18:6-8.
325
See, for example, Jeremiah 1:18; 2:8, 26; 4:9; 5:31; 6:13.
326
Jeremiah 33:17-22.
440
Zadok. The "sons of Aaron" and the Zadokites probably stood for one and the same thing,
namely the priesthood of Jerusalem. It therefore appears that the pre-exilic "chief priests" in
Jerusalem were descendants of Zadok. 327 The Hebrew Bible identifies only a few Israelite
priestly families and their tribal genealogies. As a general rule these families considered
themselves as being members of the tribe of Levi; therefore, even Zadok would have be-
longed to this tribe. There is no certainty whether the Levites who did not attain priesthood,
were subordinate to the Aaronites.328 There is also 'no evidence of the existence of a Levitical
class as an intermediary between the priests and the common people'. 329
An unresolved debate amongst scholars concerns the issue 'whether Levi ever constituted a
secular tribe identical in nature with the other tribes of Israel'. 330 The precise origins of the
Levites are therefore uncertain. The Hebrew Bible presents the Levites at various stages ei-
ther as priests, prophets, warriors or as members of a religious group. Kadesh 331 was the cen-
tre of a loose confederation of semi-sedentary clans and tribes sharing the common name
Midian; yet, individual clans and tribes preserved their identities within the larger entity.
Some of these groups were probably Yahwistic, and also incorporated in the group known as
the "Shasu of Yahu".332 It is, however, not possible to establish 'whether the Levites at
Kadesh were a priestly caste who served the Midianite league or a particular constituent tribe
of the league or whether the Levites were themselves a secular tribe or clan'. 333 These Levites
apparently became associated with Judah at Kadesh. Their history is analogous to that of the
Calebites, Othnielites and Jerahmeelites – all originally independent clans – who entered Ca-
naan with Judah and were eventually absorbed by that tribe. Judges 17 and 18 indicate that
the Levites were favoured as priests and sought by the tribes.334
According to biblical evidence, 'the Levites were an indigent tribe, deprived of an inheritance
of their own and scattered throughout the land of Israel'. 335 Scholars generally maintain that
327
Rehm 1992:305-309. The genealogy in 1 Chronicles 6:1-15 presents a reasonably accurate listing of the
main priestly descendants of Zadok.
328
Haran 1978:76-78, 92.
329
Haran 1978:93.
330
Robinson 1978:4.
331
Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea, is a site in North Sinai; the name was apparently derived from the Hebrew word
for "holiness" or "separateness". It is located near ‛Ain el-Qudeirat in the Wadi el-‛Ain. It is the largest oasis in
the northern Sinai. According to the Hebrew Bible the Israelites camped at the site before their entrance into
Canaan. 'Excavations have produced no evidence of a large number of people having stayed at the site any time
during when the Exodus is postulated to have occurred' (Manor 1992:1-3).
332
See § 2.6 and § 4.3.4 in connection with "Yahu in the land of the Shasu"; see also footnote in § 2.7 concerning
the Shasu.
333
Robinson 1978:6.
334
Robinson 1978:3-6, 8, 17.
335
Haran 1978:112.
441
the gift of the Levitical cities contradicts the fact that the Levites are mainly described as
landless and impoverished. In agreement with the Priestly Source 336 the Levites settled in for-
ty-eight cities and were supported by tithes. These cities probably had originally been cultic
centres and were thus later allocated as Levitical cities. 337 Boling338 is of the opinion that 'the
origin and purpose of the system of levitical towns is not so clear.' Certain towns had the ob-
ligation to grant residential and pasture rights to the Levites. He furthermore mentions that
the 'dispersal of the levitical carriers of militant Yahwism throughout the territory of Israel
was thus institutionalized in the appointment of levitical towns'. 339 Militant Levites were to
teach the "old Yahwist duties". 340
As narrated in Exodus 32,341 Levitic zeal was commendable, while Genesis 49 342 condemns
their cruelty. They were apparently skilled swordsmen. 343 Lasine344 mentions that 'the Le-
vites' continual association with violence has been a mystery for decades'. The priestly writer
portrays 'the Levites as substitutes for the first-born redeemed from Yahweh and sacrifices of
the Israelites who direct divine wrath from the community to themselves'. 345 In the early tra-
ditions the Levites had been called "unusually violent and cruel", and the tribe is also consist-
ently associated with violence in the Hebrew Bible. The Levites were, however, apparently
rewarded with priesthood for their fratricide act, as narrated in Exodus 32. 346 Lasine347 dis-
cusses Levitical violence – particularly in the context of Exodus 32. He reaches the conclu-
sion that, in order to evaluate narratives concerning the Levites and holy violence, 'one must
keep in mind that the reader addressed by biblical narrators is assumed to be related to bibli-
cal personages such as the Levites'. 348 Biblical narrators, furthermore, address a "canonical
audience", indicating that the text had relevance for their lives as well. Scholars denote that
laws governing the Levites – particularly deuteronomistic laws – enhance the marginal status
of the Levites.349
336
See § 8.2.
337
Haran 1978:116-117, 119.
338
Boling 1985:23.
339
Boling 1985:27.
340
Boling 1985:23, 27.
341
Exodus 32:25-28.
342
Genesis 49:5-7, 'Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords. … . For in their an-
ger they killed men, … . Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will
divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel'.
343
Robinson 1978:17.
344
Lasine 1994:204.
345
Lasine 1994:204. See in this regard the mass fratricide executed by the Levites, as narrated in Exodus 32.
346
Exodus 32:29.
347
Lasine 1994:204-229.
348
Lasine 1994:228.
349
Lasine 1994:210, 229.
442
Stallman350 observes that scholarly studies and evaluations of the 11Q Temple Scroll of the
Qumran community indicate that the Levites were elevated to a relatively high status. The
frequent reference to the group in this literature is evidence that they were highly respected.
See paragraph 8.8.2 for a brief discussion of the role of the Levites in the Qumran commu-
nity.
6.2.7 Other related groups

As mentioned earlier,351 there are many indications that Yahweh was worshipped in the re-
gions of Edom, Seir, Midian, Sinai, Negeb and other southern Palestinian areas. It seems, fur-
thermore, that nomadic and semi-nomadic, as well as sedentary tribes and clans who fre-
quented these territories, were to a great extent related to each other. Therefore, if Yahweh
was worshipped by some of these groups – such as the Kenites, Rechabites and Calebites 352 –
it stands to reason that some of the other related tribes and clans also would have venerated
Yahweh. Three tribes of such possible worshippers, as well as the Canaanite woman Rahab,
are discussed briefly hereafter.
Edomites
Israelite tradition, 353 as well as Egyptian documentation, 354 places Yahweh in the regions of
Edom and Seir. 355 Bartlett356 mentions that, despite such a tradition, it 'does not necessarily
suggest that the people of Edom worshipped Yahweh as their god'. Yet, by way of poetic
parallelism with Edom, Yahweh could be connected to Bozrah.357 Jethro, priest of Midian,
brought a burnt-offering and sacrifices to Yahweh;358 the Midianites and Edomites were relat-
ed.359 Similarly, the people of Israel and of Edom had the same ancestor, thus originally shar-
ing the same religion; the cult of Yahweh, therefore, would have been known amongst the
Edomites. There is, however, no evidence that they venerated Yahweh exclusively; they rec-
ognised other gods, particularly a deity called Qos.360 There is, nonetheless, the possibility
350
Stallman 1992:165, 189.
351
See particularly § 2.6, § 4.3.4 and § 5.3.
352
See § 5.3, § 6.2.2 and § 6.2.3.
353
See Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4.
354
See § 2.6 and § 4.3.4.
355
Seir was a mountainous region south-east of the Dead Sea. It is the biblical name for part of the country of
Edom; see, for example, Genesis 32:4; 36:8, 21; Deuteronomy 2:4-5, 8, 12; Joshua 24:4; Judges 5:4.
356
Bartlett 1989:198.
357
Buseirah; see footnote in § 2.13, subtitle Female Figurines.
358
See § 5.3.
359
See § 5.3 and "List of figures", Figure 5: Schematic representation of possible genealogical links of marginal
groups.
360
Several scholars have suggested that Qos had features in common with Yahweh (Bartlett 1989:197). See also
discussion of Qos in § 3.5.
443
that Israel's writers remained silent on the matter that the Edomites practised the cult of Yah-
weh; it is unlikely that the Israelites would have admitted that the hated Edomites also wor-
shipped Yahweh.361 'The Deuteronomist's readiness to accept the Edomites into the religious
community of Israel … may have been based on some knowledge and understanding of the
early connection and essential similarity between the Edomite and the Israelite religion'. 362
Amalekites
Amalek was the son of Eliphaz and his concubine, Timna, and thus a grandson of Esau. 363 He
was one of the 'chiefs of Eliphaz in the land of Edom'. 364 Biblical tradition therefore links the
Amalekites and Edomites. The highly mobile lifestyle of the Amalekites is described in all
biblical passages. Although Edom was apparently their homeland, they occupied fringe areas
which could not readily support sedentary population groups. 'Their seasonal migrations or
raiding expeditions did take them as far north as the hill country of Ephraim (Judg 12:15) and
as far west as the Philistine territory around Ziklag (1 Sam 30:1-2).'365 The various Amalekite
tribes obviously needed a large territory to live in, given the region's limited food and water
sources. Samuel366 refers to the presence of the Kenites among the Amalekites. Two epi-
sodes in Judges 6367 link the Amalekites to both the Midianites and "the people of the East"
[Kenites]. After the mid-tenth century BC, the specific name "Amalekites" seems to have
disappeared from the historical memory of the biblical writers. These people probably
merged with other groups and took on new names; they might have been identified with the
generic term "Arab". No recovered archaeological data can be attributed to Amalek with any
degree of certainty.368 As far as I could ascertain, there is also no indication which religion
they practised.
Kadmonites
Genesis 15:19 lists the Kadmonites as one of the ten groups of pre-Israelite inhabitants in the
land promised to Abraham. The name means "Easterners", and the group could be identified
with the "people of the East".369 The latter is an ethnographic collective name, used mainly
for nomads or semi-nomads of the Syro-Arabian desert. The name "Kadmonites" is found
361
Bartlett 1989:198-199.
362
Bartlett 1989:184.
363
364
Genesis 36:15-16.
365
Mattingly 1992:170.
366
1 Samuel 15:6.
367
Judges 6:3-4, 33.
368
Mattingly 1992:169-171.
369
Genesis 29:1; Judges 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; Job 1:3; Isaiah 11:14; Jeremiah 49:28; Ezekiel 25:4,10.
444
only in the list in Genesis 15 and its meaning could be best determined from its placement in
the Genesis list. Together with the Kenites and Kenizzzites, the Kadmonites might have rep-
resented the southern foreign elements which were later absorbed by the tribe of Judah. 370
Rahab
Despite Rahab being a "mysterious woman", she is well known for the part she played in the
Israelites' conquest of Jericho. 371 There is no indication that her profession as a prostitute – or
harlot – should be interpreted as being cultic in the service of fertility deities. Although the
name Rahab originally might have been composed with the name of a Canaanite god, no con-
clusion can be drawn from her name. 372 Beek373 indicates that, although Rahab stated that she
knew that Yahweh had given the Canaanite land to Israel, 374 and that 'the LORD [Yahweh]
your God, he is God in the heavens above and on earth beneath', 375 this is not a confession of
monotheism. The historical value of the narrative cannot be substantiated by reliable materi-
al; the author obviously had a theological aim in mind. According to an old rabbinic tradition,
Joshua married Rahab. Her assistance to the Israelites was rewarded by a generation of
priests and prophets. Although Matthew376 – in the New Testament – mentions her as the
mother of Boaz in the genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth, Jewish literary tradition never made
her the ancestor of Jesus. Stek377 is of the opinion that the identity of Rahab should not be
ignored. Yahwistic poets in Israel referred to Egypt as "Rahab", the mythical monster associ-
ated with the cosmic sea.378 Rahab's confession accounts for her actions; she knew that the
Israelite God, Yahweh, is the only true god. The intention of the author was probably, inter
alia, to indicate that everyone who seriously acknowledges Yahweh, as the only God of crea-
tion and history, will be accepted amongst his people and in his kingdom.
6.3 Occurrence in the Masoretic Text

Despite sparse references in the Masoretic Text – and in concurrence with my hypothesis – I
postulate that marginal groups, particularly in the southern regions, were instrumental in the
sustaining of the Yahweh-alone movement, carrying it through into the exilic and post-exilic
370
Reed 1992:4.
371
See Joshua 2.
372
Beek 1982:37.
373
Beek 1982:38-39.
374
Joshua 2:9.
375
Joshua 2:11. See similar wording in Deuteronomy 4:39.
376
Matthew 1:5.
377
Stek 2002:39-40, 47-48.
378
Psalm 89:10. In both instances – Joshua 2 and Psalm 89:10 – the spelling of the word "Rahab" is bhr; in the
Masoretic Text the name appears in verse 11. According to Holladay (1971:333) the word means "afflictor".
445
periods. In the preceding paragraphs of this chapter, noteworthy peripheral tribes or clans are
discussed. I, furthermore, advance that these groups – or at least some of them, such as the
Kenites and Rechabites379 – played a significant role in the establishment of a post-exilic
Yahweh-alone monotheism. I, likewise, propose that priestly rivalry impeded documentation
of these groups who existed on the fringes of society – even though they were later mainly
assimilated into the tribe of Judah.
In the preceding discussions, textual references have been furnished – where applicable –
concerning the group under discussion. These references are herewith listed for relevant
tribes or clans.
Kenites
Genesis 15:19 lists the Kenites with the Kenizzites, Kadmonites and other peoples, whose
land was promised to Abraham; Numbers 24:21-22 mentions that their dwelling place is set in
a rock and links them to Cain; Judges 1:16 refers to Moses' Kenite father-in-law who went to
the Negeb, near Arad; Judges 4:11 reports that Heber, the Kenite, separated from the Kenites
and pitched his tent in the North near Kedesh; Judges 4:17 and 5:24 narrate the incident when
Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, killed Sisera, leader of the Canaanite army; according to
1 Samuel 15:6, Saul warned the Kenites to part from the Amalekites, as Saul intended to de-
stroy the latter; in 1 Samuel 27:10 David mentions the Negeb of the Kenites; 1 Samuel 30:29
refers to the cities of the Kenites; 1 Chronicles 2:55 indicates that the Kenites – who were
'from the house of Rechab' – were scribes who lived at Jabez.
Rechabites
2 Samuel 4:2, 5-6, 9 narrate an incident concerning Rechab, son of Rimmon – there is no in-
dication that his Rechab is connected to the Rechabites; 2 Kings 10 describes the "slaughter-
ing" of Ahab's descendants by Jehu – verses 15 and 23 mention Jehonadab the son of Rechab,
who indicates that he is in agreement with Jehu in his 'zeal for the LORD [Yahweh]' (2 Kings
10:15-16); 1 Chronicles 2:55 refers to the clans of scribes who lived at Jabez and who were
from 'the house of Rechab'; Nehemiah 3:14 mentions Malchijah, the son of Rechab, who re-
built the Dung Gate in Jerusalem; in Jeremiah 35 the prophet praises the obedience of the
Rechabites – verses 2-3, 5-6, 8, 14, 16, 18-19 specifically name either the Rechabites, or Jon-
adab the son of Rechab ('our father'). 1 Chronicles 4 names the descendants of Judah –
379
See 1 Chronicles 2:55.
446
verse 12 states, 'these are the men of Recah'; scholars surmise that Recah is a distortion of
Rechab, which would imply that Rechab appears in the genealogy of the tribe of Judah.
Calebites
In agreement with reports in the Masoretic Text, two Calebs are mentioned, both apparently
descendants of the tribe of Judah.
Numbers 13:6 specifically states, 'from the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh', while
Numbers 32:12, and also Joshua 14:6, 14, mention 'Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite';
in the list of descendants of Judah (1 Chronicles 4), 'the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh',
are recorded (1 Chronicles 4:15); Numbers 34:19 names Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, from
the tribe of Judah; this Caleb, as well as Joshua, appears in the narrative concerning the spies
sent out to the land of Canaan (Numbers 13:30; 14:6, 24, 30, 38); his name is found on the
census list of Moses (Numbers 26:65); 1 Chronicles 6:55-56 mentions the inheritance of
Caleb, son of Jephunneh; Caleb's inheritance is also stated in Deuteronomy 1:36; Joshua
14:14; 15:13-14; 21:12; Judges 1:20; Othniel, son of Kenaz, is indicated as the brother of
Caleb (Joshua 15:17; Judges 1:13; 3:9); Caleb gave his daughter as wife to Othniel (Joshua
15:16-18; Judges 1:12-15).
Caleb, son of Hezron, is listed as a descendant of Judah in 1 Chronicles 2:4-5, 18; he took
Ephrath as his wife (1 Chronicles 2:19); the descendants of this Caleb are listed in 1 Chroni-
cles 2:24, 42, 46, 48-50; Caleb is indicated as the brother of Jerahmeel, son of Hezron
(1 Chronicles 2:42). 1 Samuel 30:14 mentions the "Negeb of Caleb"; there is no indication to
which Caleb the reference is made.
Kenizzites (Kenaz)
Genesis 15:19 lists the Kenizzites, together with the Kenites, Kadmonites, and other peoples,
whose land was promised as inheritance to Abraham; Kenaz is indicated as the son of Elip-
haz, son of Esau – he was thus a descendant of Esau (Genesis 36:9-11; 1 Chronicles 1:36);
Genesis 36:15, 40-42; 1 Chronicles 1:51-53 mention Kenaz as a tribal chief; Othniel, brother
of Caleb, was the son of Kenaz (Joshua 15:17; Judges 1:13; 3:9, 11); 1 Chronicles 4:13 names
Othniel and Seraiah as the sons of Kenaz, while 1 Chronicles 4:15 indicates Kenaz as the son
of Caleb, son of Jephunneh.
447
Jerahmeelites
Jerahmeel is identified as the son of Hezron (grandson of Judah), and is thus a descendant of
Judah (1 Chronicles 2:4-5, 9, 25); Caleb is listed as a brother of Jerahmeel (1 Chronicles
2:42); descendants of Jerahmeel are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:27, 33; Atarah was "another
wife" of Jerahmeel (1 Chronicles 2:26); the territory (Negeb) of the Jerahmeelites, and the
cities of the Jerahmeelites are noted in 1 Samuel 27:10; 30:29. The genealogical list in
1 Chronicles 24:29 refers to Jerahmeel, the son of Kish; this list records the 'sons of the Le-
vites according to their fathers' house' (1 Chronicles 24:29-30). This chapter in 1 Chronicles
notes the priests as organised by David.
Levites
Although I list the Levites as a marginalised group – due to the many instances in the Maso-
retic Text where they are ostracised – there are too many references to be recorded for this
specific purpose.
6.4 Religion, traditions and role in the Israelite cult

Regarding the traditions and characteristics of the marginal groups, and the possible influence
it had on the Israelite religion, many aspects thereof –– as referred to also in this paragraph –
overlap particularly in paragraphs 5.2, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.5. This is unavoidable since these fea-
tures and traditions are relevant to the deliberations in the different aforementioned para-
graphs.
Van der Toorn380 mentions that 'religious pluralism, though often regarded as a specifically
modern phenomenon, was not unknown in antiquity'. Ancient civilisations – even with "name
tags" such as Mesopotamian civilisation or Israelite religion – covered a diversity of practices
and formations. Early Israelite religion entailed various currents and assemblages, of which
one particular group, the Rechabites, 'were considered an oddity by many of their contempo-
raries'. 381 A reconstruction of the Rechabites' history – although tentative – may be a point of
departure to draw any conclusions about religious pluralism and identity in Israel. 382
Jeremiah 35 is the main source of information concerning the Rechabites. 383 The Book of
Jeremiah describes a meeting of the prophet with representatives of the Rechabites at the
380
381
382
383
See also discussion in § 6.5.
448
Jerusalem Temple, approximately 600 BC. A clan of the Rechabites – including Jaazaniah,
son of Jeremiah 384 – are invited to drink wine. They refuse, indicating that their "father", Jon-
adab ben Rechab, commanded them not to drink wine, plant vineyards, sow seeds or build
houses. Although the narrative involves Jaazaniah, his grandfather Habazziniah385 – Jeremiah
35:3 – is probably 'included to underscore the continuity of the Rechabite tradition and fami-
ly'.386 The Rechabites' zealous devotion to Yahweh may be reflected in the -yah endings in
the three Rechabite names – Jaazaniah, Jeremiah and Habazziniah. The Rechabites were
faithful to Yahweh for many continuing generations; this is contrasted to king Jehoiakim's
failure to heed Yahweh's word. According to Jeremiah 36:30, Jehoiakim 'shall have none to
sit on the throne of David', while the Rechabites are promised descendants. 387 Although the
Rechabites were not city dwellers, they moved to Jerusalem in fear of the military pressure
from the Babylonians. 388 To them Yahweh was the god of the steppe – they regarded them-
selves as guardians of the pure Yahweh worship.
According to Zevit 389 – by the tenth century BC – Yahweh was worshipped in certain parts of
Israel, and at the end of that century his cult was pan-Israelite. He furthermore indicates that,
in the light of particular data,390 Yahweh was known in Syria as early as the eighteenth to six-
teenth centuries BC. 'The major participants [in Israel] in YHWH cults and the disseminators
of its myths may have been groups of mantics and clans of Levites. It also had its champions
and exclusive YHWH-alone devotees;'391 these were, however, "exceptional and atypical".
Zevit 392 suggests that at least some of the Yahweh-alone groups were Jerusalem Temple Le-
vites. Its members probably included people motivated by "aggressive passion", with an in-
sight to reform a worldview. Despite its representatives' efforts there was – during the eighth
to sixth centuries BC – hardly any 'uniformity in the perceptions of YHWH's history, mythol-
ogies, or cults'.393 Psalm 15 lists the characteristics of a person who fears Yahweh, which
might be a reflection on the Yahweh-alone members, who were, seemingly, a well-defined
384
Jeremiah 35:3 refers to Jaazaniah, the son of Jeremiah, son of Habazziniah, his brothers, all his sons and the
whole house of the Rechabites. Berridge (1992:592) mentions that, although he is referred to as the son of Jere-
miah, this is not a reference to the prophet. Jaazaniah was probably a chief of the Rechabite community; at the
close of Jehoiakim's reign – ca 609-597 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197) – the Rechabites took refuge in Jeru-
salem.
385
The name Habazziniah might mean "Yahweh has made me joyful" (Bracke 1992:6).
386
Bracke 1992:6.
387
Bracke 1992:6. See Jeremiah 35:18-19 for the promise to the Rechabites, and the elucidation thereof in § 6.5.
388
Jeremiah 35:11.
389
Zevit 2001:687-690.
390
See Zevit (2001:687) for more information on these data. See also discussions in § 4.3.
391
Zevit 2001:687-688.
392
Zevit 2001:688, 690.
393
Zevit 2001:688.
449
group. This association probably gained momentum after the Assyrian destruction of the
Northern Kingdom in 722 BC. During the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods,394 the
worldview of the Yahweh-alone movement became widespread among Israelites in exile. Ac-
cording to Polk, 395 the Levites probably assisted in the establishment of a monarchy, and
thereby remained in its service in different capacities. Their commitment to Yahweh and his
Covenant was carried over into an allegiance to the king, being Yahweh's earthly regent.
However, this did not imply a discontinuity of features previously identified with the Levites.
The political and religious functions of the Levites cannot be separated easily, and therefore
one would expect to see them involved in administrative, as well as cultic affairs.
Apart from the reference in 1 Chronicles 2:55 to the "House of Rechab" and the Rechabites'
association with the Kenites, the Rechabites appear in 1 Chronicles 4 396 in a list that mentions
the founders of different guilds whose names are connected to the localities where they pur-
sued their trade. The unique discipline of the Rechabites was used as an example of people
who remained faithful to the commandments of Yahweh. The distinctive traits of the Recha-
bites, namely abstention from intoxicants, tent dwelling and the disdaining of agriculture, la-
belled them as nomads. These cultural traits, however, do not necessarily characterise no-
madic groups; the specific features also fit the description of the way of life of an itinerant
guild of craftsmen. The biblical Rechabites apparently maintained their particular discipline
at least from the ninth to the sixth century BC.397
As mentioned earlier – in paragraph 6.1 – different religious groups interacted in the Israelite
religion. 398 Under the Omride Dynasty in Northern Israel, religious institutions were support-
ed by the State on a basis of equality. To avoid favouritism, Yahweh was therefore no longer
the only national deity. The Rechabites resisted this pluralism, openly endorsed and propa-
gated by the State. As a means of symbolic opposition, they began to observe their ancestral
customs vigorously. In time to come, this symbolical resistance transformed into an identity
marker; their religious convictions thus became part of their uniqueness. 399
394
Sixth and fifth centuries BC.
395
Polk 1979:4-5.
396
In particular, in 1 Chronicles 4:11-14, 22-23. The "men of Rechah" (probably Rechab) in this list, thus asso
ciated with Irnahash – the City of Copper, or the city of smiths or craftsmen, as well as with the Kenazzite Joab,
the "father of the Valley of Craftsmen", and the house of linen workers and the potters (Frick 1992:632).
397
Frick 1992:630-631.
398
399
450
6.5 Influence during the Monarchical Period
As commented in a previous paragraph – 6.3 – there are only a few references to the marginal
groups in the Masoretic Text. There is thus hardly any indication what influence they had – if
any – during the Monarchical Period. Furthermore, several aspects mentioned in this para-
graph – particularly concerning marginal groups – unavoidably overlap discussions or refer-
ences in previous paragraphs of this chapter.
Human400 mentions that a Yahweh-alone movement originated during the Monarchical Period.
The movement, which propagated exclusive worship to Yahweh in resistance to polytheism,
started in the ninth century BC. 401 Lang402denotes that the Hebrew Bible endorses a theory of
a primordial monotheism that easily leads to the idea that polytheism is the 'illegitimate off-
spring of a much older monotheism'. The origin of monolatry cannot be reconstructed posi-
tively. Rivalry between the priests and prophets of Yahweh and those of other gods, might
have contributed to a Yahweh-alone movement. Even in the face of polytheism Yahweh was
the undisputed national God of Israel. Yet, the dominant religion of the Israelite Monarchy
was polytheistic; it did not differ from that of its neighbours. 403 Lang404 also states that, alt-
hough 'many of the protagonists and leaders of the minority Yahweh-alone movement remain
anonymous', they might be called the "founders" of Jewish monotheism.
Dever405 is of the opinion that 'the notion of a revolutionary new religion that emerged com-
plete overnight and never required or underwent revolutionary development is … unconvinc-
ing'.406 In the Book of Deuteronomy Moses appears as a lawgiver and the architect of the Is-
raelite religion and also as the focus of the Yahweh-alone reform movement, whereas ancient
documents about the exodus407 make no mention of Moses. Southern Transjordan Shasu no-
mads – linked to Yhw408 – were probably among the tribal groups who later became early Is-
rael. They might even 'have been guided through the desert by a charismatic, sheikh-like
leader with the Egyptian name of Moses'. 409
400
Human 1999:498.
401
Human (1999:498) mentions that the Yahweh-alone movement started with the conflict between Elija and
Elisha, and the worshippers of the Tyrian god during the time of the Omrides. See 1 Kings 18.
402
Lang 1983:13.
403
Lang 1983:13-14, 19-21.
404
Lang 1983:56.
405
Dever 2003:235.
406
Dever (2003:232-237) refers to the unlikely historical basis of Moses and the exodus.
407
Documents such as Miriam's "Song of the Sea" (Exodus 15:20-21).
408
See § 2.6 and § 4.3.4 in connection with "Yhw(Yahu) in the land of the Shasu".
409
Dever 2003:237.
451
A theology that gradually came into conflict with the traditional folk religion of the Israelites
developed from the Deuteronomic School. By the eighth century BC, monotheism – which,
according to biblical writers, existed from the days of the Wilderness – was presented as the
only accepted ideal. The prophets – who were indeed a minority – were outspoken in their
opposition to the polytheistic folk religion. However, the message of this minority group was
too extreme and in direct opposition to the traditional religious beliefs and practices. It is,
therefore, unlikely that the prophetic works would have been preserved had it not been for a
small circle of faithful disciples. Some scholars refer to the writings of the deuteronomists
and the prophets as a "minority report" in the Hebrew Bible. Contrary to previous concep-
tions, scholars generally accept that "true monotheism" emerged only during the Exile. The
Hebrew Bible is thus a revised history based on lessons the authors presumably drew from
their polytheistic history. A new emphasis was placed on exclusive Yahwism. 410
The prophets were undoubtedly advocates of the Yahweh-alone movement. For them Yahweh
was the national God of Israel, the universal God, who tolerated no other gods. It was, never-
theless, only by the end of the Monarchical Period that a belief system began to develop
amongst the majority of Israelites that Yahweh was the only God. A collection of letters from
Lachish and Arad start their greetings and oath-formulas in "a spirit of exclusive Yah-
wism". 411 However, this practice 'is not a conclusive guarantee of orthodox Yahwism'. 412 It
is indeterminate whether prophetic guilds or associations existed in the days of the Omrides.
These so-called "guilds" were probably religious groupings comparable to monastic orders.
The 'picture of the prophets as fervent religious men at the fringes of society needs to be
counterbalanced by data showing their role as civil servants'. 413 According to Cook414 – and
in agreement with Dever 415 – true monotheism only emerged at the time of the Babylonian
exile, even though prophets – such as Hosea – propagated a Yahweh-alone worship. He disa-
grees with the general view of scholars that biblical Yahwism evolved out of the religion of
the Canaanites, and developed under the influence of prophets into the present form of uni-
versal monotheism.
Eighth century BC prophets Hosea and Micah are excellent examples of the implementation
of the Sinai theology. They were members of an alienated minority group who strove to
410
Dever 2005:285-286, 294-295.
411
Dijkstra 2001a:123-124.
412
Dijkstra 2001a:124.
413
414
Cook 2004:4, 10-11.
415
Dever 2005:295.
452
preserve a village-orientated lifestyle, as well as the Sinai traditions. Biblical Yahwism could
be identified as a theological institution, a covenantal belief – designated "Sinai theology".
According to this tradition, sole allegiance was owed to Yahweh. 416 Partisans of this theology
'were minority groups at the periphery of society', 417 who also participated in the instigation to
place the Sinai theology at the centre of the late monarchical Judean community. Groups of
Levites, who traced their ancestry to the Elides of Shiloh, likewise played a significant role in
preserving the Sinai theology. These peoples, on the fringes of society, furthermore assisted
in the reforms of kings Hezekiah 418 and Josiah; 419 the two monarchs thereby granted recogni-
tion to their theology and incorporated some of their members within the official Temple and
palace circles.420 Wittenberg421 denotes that during the Josianic reform in 622 BC, supporters
of the Yahweh-alone movement were at the court in Jerusalem and amongst the priests in the
Temple; consequently, that which previously had been the view of the minority opposition,
now became dominant in Judah.
As also mentioned in paragraph 6.2.6, the Levites, 'who probably had put the idea of monola-
try on its way to monotheism', 422 were, at some stage, dropped from the cult. During the divi-
sion of the kingdom, 423 Jeroboam I 424 appointed non-Levites as priests in the Northern King-
dom.425 As a result thereof some northern Levites left their homes and went to Jerusalem.
They were, however, not received with enthusiasm by the Zadokites at the Temple. The Le-
vites may thus have been cut off from the Jerusalem and other southern sanctuaries with lim-
ited access to employment. Those Levites who remained in the North probably preserved
many traditions which were later incorporated in the Book of Deuteronomy. During the time
of Hezekiah the Levites in the countryside had the opportunity to join their fellow Levites
who were already in Jerusalem. 426 Biblical evidence indicates that 'the Levites were an indi-
gent tribe, deprived of an inheritance of their own and scattered throughout the land of Is-
rael'.427 According to older texts in the Hebrew Bible, the Levites initially were not included
in the priestly caste; neither did they originally form a tribe. 428 The Chronicler attempted to
416
Cook 2004:267-268, 271.
417
Cook 2004:267.
418
Hezekiah reigned in Judah ca 715-686 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
419
Josiah reigned in Judah ca 640-609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
420
Cook 2004:268, 277.
421
422
Fechter 2000:693.
423
Division of the United Monarchy: 931/30 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
424
Jeroboam I reigned ca 930-910 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
425
See 1 Kings 12:25-26, 31.
426
Rehm 1992:306-308.
427
Haran 1978:112.
428
Fechter 2000:691.
453
link the Levites and the prophets; the Levites thus became more important in the hierarchy of
the Second Temple. 'The temple musicians worked through prophetic inspiration.' 429 In the
Hebrew Bible the Levites are presented at various stages either as priests, prophets, warriors
or as members of a religious group.430 Scholars denote that laws governing the Levites – par-
ticularly deuteronomistic laws – enhance the marginal status of these people. 431 Obviously,
there would have been supporters of the Yahweh-alone movement amongst them.
Nakhai432 denotes 'that the core of Yahwistic worshippers settled in the Central Highlands ra-
ther than farther north'. These worshippers dwelled amongst Canaanites and other tribes who
sought refuge in the remote mountains. No wonder this region later became the heartland of
the Israelite Monarchy. 433 According to Newman,434 a Yahweh confederation was established
in the hill country, comprising a number of tribes. Dever 435 mentions that the resettled "Isra-
elite" community might have included Shasu Bedouins, who came from the southern regions
and who could be connected to a Yahweh-cult there. Ramsey436 indicates that some scholars
are of the opinion that Judges 1:11-20 describes an invasion by Judah and related groups from
the South. Centuries later, the deportation of Judeans to Babylonia 437 had the result that Yah-
weh-worshippers were found in Babylonia. According to the biblical account in 2 Kings
25,438 Gedaliah was appointed governor in Judah by king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. His
name suggests that he was a Yahwist, probably a Judean. 439
The name Jehonadab – or Jonadab – ben Rechab is mentioned particularly in connection with
two incidents recorded in the Hebrew Bible. In the first instance a person called Jehonadab
ben Rechab is named as an accomplice of Jehu, and then again, after a silence of approxi-
mately two hundred and fifty years, Jonadab ben Rechab appears in Jeremiah 35 as a symbol
of the preservation of their ancestral traditions by the Rechabites.
429
Van Rooy 1994:176.
430
Robinson 1978:3.
431
Lasine 1994:210.
432
Nakhai 2003:142.
433
Nakhai 2003:141.
434
Newman 1985:175.
435
Dever 1997a:40.
436
Ramsey 1981:67.
437
Deportation to Babylonia in 586 BC, resulting in the Babylonian exile.
438
2 Kings 25:22-24.
439
Davies 1992:79.
454
Jehu became king of Israel after he overthrew the Omride Dynasty and established one of his
own.440 The most important source of information on the history of Jehu is found in 2 Kings
9-10, and a brief summary thereof in 2 Chronicles 22:7-9. Several Assyrian inscriptions men-
tion Jehu by name. Apart from the identification of his father as Nimshi, no other information
about his ancestry is extant.441 During the years before Jehu's emergence, loyal Yahwists in
the Northern Kingdom – in particular, the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and those in prophetic
circles who gathered around them – protested against the active promotion of the Ba‛al cult.
The defence program of the Omrides, 442 as well as their basic principles of foreign policy,
eventually caused dissatisfaction amongst their subjects. Jehu took advantage of these factors
for a surprise attack on the Omrides. 443 On his way to Samaria Jehu encountered Jehonadab,
son of Rechab. The latter assured Jehu of his support.444 By having Jehonadab – the alleged
leader of the Rechabites – join him on the chariot, 'Jehu was able to demonstrate to the popu-
lace his partisanship toward the national Israelite and ancient Yahwistic traditions of Israel, in
opposition to the Omride policy of accommodation to Canaanite ways'. 445 Although the deu-
teronomists praised Jehu for his opposition to the cult of Ba‛al, the prophet Hosea judges Je-
hu's deeds as amounting to a "terrible blood guilt" and declares that his dynasty will eventual-
ly have to account for these actions. 446 Van der Toorn447 mentions that some scholars suggest
that Jehonadab ben Rechab was a commander in the Judahite army, and as such collaborated
with Jehu to exterminate the House of Omri.
Olyan448 denotes that Jehu was supported by both the Rechabites and the Elijah-Elisha
School. According to Van der Toorn,449 'Jehu's coup promised a return to the old order in
which Jahwistic groups were privileged above others' – however, it did not materialise.
Moore450 mentions that some scholars interpret the Jehu tradition from the point of view that
Jehu was merely a purification tool in the hands of Yahweh, while other scholars are of the
opinion that he was a political revolutionary that stood up for a Yahwistic minority who was
'desperate enough to use terrorism as a political weapon'. 451 There are many questions
440
Jehu reigned ca 841-814 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
441
Jehu, son of Nimshi; see 1 Kings 19:16; 2 Kings 9:20; 2 Chronicles 22:7.
442
The Omride Dynasty commenced with the reign of Omri (ca 885-874 BC) and ended when Jehu killed his
grandson Joram who reigned ca 852-841 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
443
See in particular 2 Kings 10.
444
2 Kings 10:15-17.
445
Thiel 1992c:671.
446
Thiel 1992c:670-671, 673. See also Hosea 1:4.
447
448
Olyan 1988:7.
449
450
Moore 2003:97, 99.
451
Moore 2003:97.
455
regarding Jehu's conduct, for instance, why did he attack the Canaanite religion with zeal, on-
ly to submit later to political domination by Assyria? Moore, 452 furthermore, indicates that
scholars have drawn a comparison between Jehu's purge453 and Anat's454 purge.455
Jehonadab456 ben Rechab was apparently one of the prophets who rejected the religious plu-
ralism promoted by the Omrides. Although the Rechabites were a clan – to whom Jehonadab
belonged – and the prophets a guild, the structure of the two groups need not necessarily have
been vastly different. Jehonadab was allegedly the person who determined the strict ob-
servance of particular habits and the nomadic lifestyle of the Rechabite clan. 457 Lang458 de-
notes that 'tracing back customary law to nomadic ancestors such as Jonadab (Jer 35) may
have been widespread and be implied in, or have given rise to, the idea of Mosaic law'.
In addition to the Jehonadab ben Rechab mentioned in the Jehu-narrative, Jeremiah 35 in-
volves the Rechabite clan of Jonadab ben Rechab; this chapter in Jeremiah is an important
source of information on the lifestyle of the Rechabites. They followed a particular mode of
living – representing the nomadic ideal – as commanded by "Rechab their father". 459 They
abstained from drinking wine, they sowed no seed, planted no vineyards and built no houses,
but lived in tents.460 At the same time they probably belonged to a guild of metalworkers who
were engaged in the manufacturing of chariots and weaponry. 461 Their discipline could be
interpreted as characteristic of a guild of craftsmen, specifically appropriate to smiths.462 Ac-
cording to Wyatt,463 the Rechabites 'appear as a paradigm for devotion to Yahweh'. Benja-
min, 464 however, is of the opinion that traditions, as in Jeremiah 35, do not idealise these
smiths.
Metalsmiths and artisans tend to form borderline associations that are normally regarded with
ambivalence by the dominant social groups. The Kenites – notable metallurgists – are charac-
terised in the biblical texts as loyal supporters of Yahwism, as well as adherents of the
452
Moore 2003:106-107.
453
2 Kings 9:14-10:36.
454
Anat: Canaanite goddess; see discussion in § 3.3.
455
See KTU 1.3 i-iii for Anat's purge. See Moore (2003:106-107) for a comparison of the two accounts.
456
Also known as Jonadab.
457
Van der Toorn 1995:239-240, 242-243.
458
Lang 1983:159.
459
Jeremiah 35:6.
460
Jeremiah 35:6-7.
461
462
Frick 1971:285.
463
Wyatt 2005:86-87.
464
Benjamin 1994:137.
456
Israelites. However, they were never fully incorporated into the Israelite society. 465 In the
course of time, the social status of smiths and artisans in Israel probably changed; their social
separation was therefore not as radical as that during the pre-monarchical period.466 The
Rechabites withstood the religious pluralism of the Israelite society and began to observe their
ancestral customs vigorously. Their lifestyle was a message of protest and resistance. They
'were among the oldest strains in the Israelite population to have worshipped Yahweh'467 – the
god of their fathers – whom they had venerated at first in Edom. Their unswerving devotion
to Yahweh became a symbol of the Yahweh-alone religion. 468 See also paragraphs 6.1, 6.2.2
and 6.4 for further elucidation on the Rechabite lifestyle.
A noun formed on the root n-d-b – as in the names of Jehonadab and Jonadab – denotes a
member of the ruling class during the Monarchical Period, who could have been an adminis-
trator or the head of an influential family. 469 During the time of Jeremiah, law-writing was
apparently the order of the day. Concerning the Book of Jeremiah, there can hardly be spoken
of a literary style of Jeremiah, as fragments of his speeches are reported by a narrator who
even may have modified them. A particular style may, however, be judged in respect of
chapters 1-17, which had been dictated to Baruch. 470 Some passages appear to have been
written by Jeremiah himself. The main concern of the prophet was to preserve and present
the religious contents of his oracles. 471 Scribes figure prominently in the biblical tradition.
Soferim472 emerged later as 'a distinctive class of teachers and interpreters of the Law'. 473 In-
fluenced by Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern traditions, Israelite scribes were mainly in a
secular capacity in charge of legal documents. 474 Kittel475 denotes that the words 'Jonadab the
son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me' – Jeremiah 35:19 – is an indication
465
McNutt 2002:32, 45.
466
McNutt 1994:121.
467
468
Van der Toorn 1995:248, 252.
469
Frick 1971:282.
470
According to Jeremiah 36:4, ' … Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at
the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD [Yahweh] that he had spoken to him'. See also Jeremiah
45:1.
471
Kennett 1905:182-183.
472
Scribes. The Hebrew term sofer is a participle form of the root spr, meaning "to count". It is a Canaanite
word, as well as an Egyptian loan word. It may even be a cognate to the Akkadian šāpiru, "secretary, official".
The Israelite scribe acquired his profession in family-like guilds - see particularly "the clans of scribes who lived
at Jabez", as referred to in 1 Chronicles 2:55. Scribes with diverse measures of competence were attached to
government and Temple offices; there were also independent scribes. The royal scribe held the highest scribal
post. The exact duties of the royal scribe is unknown. Several inscribed seals from the Monarchical Period –
bearing the title sofer – have been found in Palestine (Demsky 1971:1041-1043).
473
Avigad 1979:116.
474
Avigad 1979:116.
475
Kittel 1905:482.
457
that the Rechabites, in their capacity as priests or prophets, were, of necessity, also scribes.
This expression – Jeremiah 35:19 – connotes sacerdotal service in the Temple. 476
Jeremiah, who was obviously sympathetic to, and, more likely, a supporter or member of the
Yahweh-alone movement, reproved, not only the nation as a whole, but more specifically the
priests, false prophets and the kings. He singles out the members of the royal family as being
responsible for the national catastrophe which culminated in the Babylonian exile. 'The yoke
of Babylon is clearly the yoke of Yahweh; submission to Babylon is submission to Yahweh's
will.'477 No other prophetic book in the Hebrew Bible holds the royal family accountable to
such an extent for breaking the conditions of the Covenant.478 Domeris479 mentions that Jer-
emiah opposed and criticised popular Yahwism – which was a form of the older Canaanite
religion – by application of a literary device known as "antilanguage". 480 He spoke from the
outside of state-supported structures and even viewed the reforms of Josiah 481 as "intrinsically
flawed". According to Jeremiah – who appears as a minority voice – true veneration of Yah-
weh is threatened by the 'eclectic combination of cults within the temple of Jerusalem'. 482 Le
Roux483 argues that the existence of conflicting groups is reflected in the Book of Jeremiah.
These groups were involved in power games and employed religion to protect their interests.
According to Jeremiah 2:10-13, peoples have done the unthinkable to change their gods; Isra-
el has even abandoned Yahweh and followed other gods. The ideology of the Yahweh-alone
movement can be detected in this assessment of Israel's religion by Jeremiah.
According to Reimer,484 a number of factors complicate the search for "pre-exilic Jeremiah".
It is no easy task to procure "proof" that a 'text from antiquity is contemporary with the events
it recounts'.485 The amount of historical information and narrative in the Book of Jeremiah
motivated scholars to judge it as 'the most historical of the prophetic scrolls'. 486 The book has,
476
Pope 1962:16.
477
Varughese 2004:325. Jeremiah 27:12-13.
478
Varughese 2004:319-320, 325, 328.
479
Domeris 1994:7.
480
Antilanguage is a technique 'used by an antisociety, or counter-cultural group who feel themselves threatened
or alienated by the dominant and conventional norms of the wider society, and who see themselves as a con-
scious alternative to that society' (Domeris 1994:15).
481
See earlier reference and footnote in this paragraph.
482
Domeris 1994:11.
483
Le Roux, J H 1994:78.
484
Reimer 2004:207-208, 215, 220.
485
Reimer 2004:207.
486
Reimer 2004:207. Reimer (2004:209-220) discusses a continuity between the biblical narrative and its pur-
ported historical setting compared to contemporary historical evidence. External evidence is found in Babyloni-
an records, Lachish ostraca and dozens of clay bullae (stamp impressions in clay, approximately the size of a
458
however, also been evaluated as of no, or little, historical value. Reimer 487 deduces that, in
the light of his evaluation of external evidence, 488 'the narratives of Jeremiah contain histori-
cally plausible, and even reliable details'. Therefore, notwithstanding scholars' disclaimer of
an historical probability, there seems to be a closer connection between event and text in Jer-
emiah than that allowed by scholars.
The Jeremiah scroll has a notably close relationship to Deuteronomy. Jeremiah 36 empha-
sises that the scroll contains divine words; the contents therefore being entirely from the De-
ity. The themes of the prophetic scroll are thus equal to the subject matters of the Torah. 489
The relationship between the Book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History had been
recognised at an early stage of biblical scholarship. The prophet Jeremiah is, strangely
enough, not mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History. Some scholars are of the opinion that
the deuteronomists of the Deuteronomistic History were traditionalists, while more liberal
minded redactors edited Jeremiah. Scholars have reached no consensus on the matter con-
cerning the characteristics that make a text deuteronomistic. Many scholars, furthermore, in-
dicate that there is a vast difference between the authors of the Deuteronomistic History and
those of the deuteronomistic texts in Jeremiah. The absence of Jeremiah – and prophets such
as Amos and Hosea – in the Deuteronomistic History could be ascribed to prophetic an-
nouncement of irreversible disaster that did not suit the deuteronomists' ideology. Jeremiah
37-44 – the non-deuteronomistic biography of Jeremiah – contradicts the perspective of the
exilic edition of the Deuteronomistic History, which concludes that 'Judah was taken into ex-
ile out of its land'.490 It might be – according to Römer 491 – that Jeremiah is not mentioned in
the Deuteronomistic History due to a Jeremiah-tradition that firmly endorsed the views of the
remaining inhabitants of Judah. The Chronicler 492 – who had a more "autochthonous493 vi-
sion" of Israel – did, however, include Jeremiah at the end of his accounts. 494 Römer495 dis-
cusses possible redactional processes that took place in the Book of Jeremiah, the relationship
thumbnail). Thus, bullae – found in Jerusalem - link two names to the narrative in Jeremiah 36 (see also discus-
sion in § 6.2.5). Internal evidence entails historical settings, historical "mistakes" and literary criticism.
487
Reimer 2004:215.
488
See information in earlier footnote in this paragraph.
489
Davies 1998:119-120.
490
2 Kings 25:21.
491
Römer 1999:196.
492
2 Chronicles 36:22, 'Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of
Jeremiah might be fulfilled … '.
493
Referring to indigenous inhabitants.
494
Römer 1999:189, 191, 194, 196-197.
495
Römer 1999:191-199.
459
between the deuteronomists of Jeremiah and those of the Deuteronomistic History and the
deuteronomisation of the Jeremiah tradition.
Rowley496 suggests that Jeremiah should be dated forty years before the fall of Jerusalem.
The compilation of the Book of Jeremiah is, however, post-exilic. He deduces that there is no
reason to doubt the authenticity of many narratives about Jeremiah, or the oracles pronounced
by him. He furthermore connects Jeremiah 3:1 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4; it is unlikely that
Jeremiah 3:1 is a post-exilic insertion. Jeremiah probably had some knowledge of the con-
tents and style of Deuteronomy. He seemingly initially supported and advocated the deuter-
onomistic reform – as by Josiah – 'but later perceived its spiritual failure and therefore con-
demned its insufficiency'. 497 It is significant that Josiah did not consult Jeremiah in connec-
tion with the Deuteronomistic Law Book.
Brueggemann498 is of the opinion that the person of Baruch – particularly in Jeremiah 43:1-7
– 'may be understood as a key to the canonizing process and shape of the material. That is,
the interest that seems represented by "Baruch" in the text seems to be congruent with that
redactional community which shaped the final form of the text'. Baruch, who appears as
scribe of Jeremiah, 499 is referred to in Jeremiah 32; 36; 43:1-7; 45. Although scholars have
not resolved the problem of the historicity of the person of Baruch, the text indicates that Ba-
ruch, as well as his brother Seraiah500 – presented as sons of Neriah501 – were seemingly
members of a prominent family in the royal court. Some revisionists argue that Baruch was a
fictional subsidiary character who accompanied Jeremiah. Yet, other scholars assert that there
is no reason to doubt the historicity of Baruch and some scribal officials who were sympathet-
ic to Jeremiah.502 Neriah and his sons, Baruch and Seraiah, who figure in the scrolls of Jere-
miah, were seemingly an influential scribal family, who had "enormous public influence".
Despite the accusation levelled against Baruch in Jeremiah 43:1-7, Brueggemann503 argues
that 'the Baruch community believed passionately in the coherence and identification of Yah-
weh's intention (which Jeremiah uttered) and Babylonian foreign policy'. 504
496
Rowley 1963:188-189, 204-205, 208.
497
Rowley 1963:208.
498
Brueggemann 1994:406.
499
See Jeremiah 36:4; 45:1.
500
Seraiah was the quartermaster of King Zedekiah of Judah; 'he went with' the king to Babylon (Jr 51:59).
501
Baruch, son of Neriah, see Jeremiah 36:4; Seraiah, son of Neriah, see Jeremiah 51:59.
502
See Brueggemann (1994:407-408) for a brief discussion on these scholarly views.
503
Brueggemann 1994:415.
504
Brueggemann 1994:407, 411-412, 415.
460
Two originally separate and independent books, which have no counterpart in the canonical
text of Jeremiah, are found in the Septuagint.505 These additions consist of the Book of Ba-
ruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. While both additions are regarded by Protestants and Jews
as apocryphal, Roman Catholics consider these additions deuterocanonical. The Book of Ba-
ruch contains concepts and phraseology reminiscent of Jeremiah. Scholars generally date the
book ca 200-60 BC. The real author was probably a Palestinian Jew. Baruch, secretary and
confidant of the prophet Jeremiah, delivered Jeremiah's "Oracles of Destruction" to king Je-
hoiakim on two separate occasions. The Hebrew Bible is silent about Baruch's death; not sur-
prisingly, since conflicting traditions abound in this matter. The Epistle of Jeremiah – which
was not written by the prophet Jeremiah – is actually a satire against idols and idolatry. A
number of phrases and representations bear a strong resemblance to certain phrases and imag-
es in the Book of Jeremiah. However, 'in its ideas, imagery, and phraseology the epistle de-
pends primarily upon biblical passages which originated long after the prophet Jeremiah'. 506
Scholars generally agree that the Epistle is "decidedly inferior" to material in the Book of Jer-
emiah. The original version of this document probably dates between 540 BC and the first
century BC. 507
Scholars mainly accept 'that the purpose of Jer 35, the chapter about the Rechabites, is to
commend to the citizens of Judah the faithfulness this curious group exemplified'. 508 Their
steadfastness in the latter days of Jerusalem is in strong contrast to the behaviour of the Jude-
ans. Jeremiah promises survival to the Rechabites, bearing in mind an impending disaster.
Levenson509 compares Jeremiah's undertaking to the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35 510 – guaran-
teeing eternal survival of the clan – to his words to Baruch511 and Ebed-melech, the Ethiopian
royal servant;512 the latter enabled the prophet to escape certain death. The oracles concerning
Baruch and Ebed-melech513 seem to be in the same category as the promise to the Rechabites
– all three are exempted from approaching doom – however, Baruch and Ebed-melech are on-
ly assured of physical survival. The Rechabites are rewarded for their
505
506
Moore 1992:704.
507
Moore 1992:698, 702-705.
508
Levenson 1976:508.
509
Levenson 1976:508.
510
Jeremiah 35:18-19.
511
Jeremiah 45.
512
Jeremiah 39:15-18. Ebed-melech enabled Jeremiah to escape certain death in the cistern wherein officials
had cast him (Jr 38:7-13).
513
Jeremiah 45; 39:15-18.
461
observance of the commandments – they are pledged a succession of generations. Jeremiah
33:17-18, furthermore, proclaims posterity for both the Davidic Dynasty514 and the Levitical
clan. It seems quite clear that this vow to the Davidic Dynasty, the Levites and the Recha-
bites is in all three cases procured from the language of the Covenant. 515 Levenson516 con-
cludes 'that what lies behind the promise to the Rechabites is a type of covenant'.
The Journey of Zosimus – also known as the History of the Rechabites – has been identified
by scholars as an early Byzantine Palestinian Christian story. 'The apocryphon attributes to
the Rechabites features which characterize the Ten Lost Tribes.'517 The Rechabites are pre-
sented as Jews who lived before the time of Christ.518 This composition and its possible con-
nection to the Rechabites, is briefly discussed in paragraph 8.8.2. Some scholars have pro-
posed that the Rechabites of Jeremiah 35 were the forerunners of the Essenes – a suggestion
also briefly discussed in paragraph 8.8.2.

In concurrence with my hypothesis, I propose that marginal groups – particularly those tribes
from the southern regions, such as the Kenites, Rechabites, Calebites, Kenizzites and Je-
rahmeelites – were instrumental in the preserving and transmitting of the Yahwistic cult. I,
furthermore, postulate that they venerated Yahweh before the Israelites did. Throughout the
Israelite Monarchical Period they maintained a Yahweh-alone movement, despite being mar-
ginalised and comprising a minority of the people. This movement eventually played a sig-
nificant role in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh-monotheism.
The Rechabites who abstained from drinking wine and who were alienated from the soil –
they lived in tents and were migrants – represented the nomadic ideal. According to
1 Chronicles 2:55, the House of Rechab was linked to the Kenites, who also led a nomadic
life in the South. Yahweh was the god of the steppe and of the nomads. Nomadic descend-
ants of the Kenites, Rechabites, and related tribes and clans, regarded themselves as guardians
of the pure Yahweh worship. Hosea, prophet in the Northern Kingdom, identified with the
features of the nomadic ideal. Isaiah, in his prophecy, imposed upon the remnant of his peo-
ple that they should return to the nomadic manner of life. Ancient Semitic nomads
514
See also 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5; 2 Chronicles 6:16; 7:18.
515
Levenson 1976:508-510.
516
Levenson 1976:514.
517
Nikolsky 2002:185.
518
Nikolsky 2002:206.
462
constantly moved from the centre of the Arabian Desert towards the surrounding regions and
the territories in the North. They were later absorbed in the cities and settled down.
Biblical genealogies were regarded as accounts of tribal origins and interrelations, while ge-
nealogies in tribal societies often indicated political and social relationships between the
tribes. The Chronicler appropriated descent to demonstrate the legitimacy of an individual,
indicating his connections to a worthy family. It is, however, difficult to assess the Chroni-
cler's genealogies, as there are many discrepancies. Biblical genealogies follow no estab-
lished pattern or form, therefore the form of these genealogies have to be analysed before any
conclusions can be drawn regarding the function or historicity of the data. Kinship forged the
basis of West Semitic tribal groups. Lineages of a member or members of the same family
could be traced – in some instances – to different tribes or clans, depending on where they
resided. The use of variant designations for an individual or a population group is also com-
mon practice in biblical narratives. Tribes were composed of assemblages that were econom-
ically self-sufficient, and took upon themselves the private right to protect their members.
Non-Israelite relationships are conspicuous in the Chronicler's genealogy of the tribe of Ju-
dah. Descendants of Judah intermarried with Canaanites, who were regarded by the Chroni-
cler as legitimate members of this tribe. It is significant that the Chronicler openly 'exposes
the non-Israelite components in Judah's heritage'.519
McNutt520 suggests possible scenarios for marginal social groups in ancient Israel. She eluci-
dates the statuses and roles of peripheral tribes or clans – particularly the Kenites, Midianites
and Rechabites. Metalsmiths and artisans – such as the aforementioned peoples – tend to
form borderline associations that normally are regarded with ambivalence by the dominant
social groups. Smiths and other artisans were both feared and respected; in some societies
they were held in low esteem and intermarriage with them was considered best forbidden.
Although biblical texts characterise the Kenites as loyal supporters of Yahwism, they seem to
have been socially peripheral and never fully incorporated into the Israelite society. Accord-
ing to biblical traditions, the Kenites and Midianites were related. It is not clear what the rela-
tionship of the latter was with the Israelites. Based on a genealogical link between the
Kenites and the Rechabites, scholars postulate that the Rechabites shared the Kenites' trade as
metalworkers. Cain is regarded as the eponymous ancestor of tent dwellers, musicians and
metalworkers.
519
Willi 1994:158.
520
McNutt 2002:30-32, 38-40.
463
Considering the peripheral position of marginal groups, McNutt 521 draws on several disci-
plines, namely biblical interpretation, archaeology, and comparative anthropology, to analyse
the roles and statuses of these borderline peoples. Although biblical terms normally used to
identify artisans and smiths are not applied to the Kenites, Midianites and Rechabites, some
connection was made by biblical writers between these groups and smiths and artisans. Their
important contributions in society are pointed out in some passages in the Hebrew Bible. 522
These verses mention that smiths and artisans were among the people of 'high status who
were carried off into captivity by the Babylonians'; 523 they were, therefore – seemingly –
highly regarded in the sixth century BC. These reports in the Masoretic Text substantiate my
hypothesis that marginal groups played a significant role during the Exile in Babylonia. Simi-
larly, it is indicative that the Chronicler 524 acknowledges a link – probably post-exilic – be-
tween the scribes who lived at Jabez, and the House of Rechab. In the course of time, the so-
cial status of smiths and artisans in Israel probably changed and their social separation was
not as radical as that during the pre-monarchical period. According to Benjamin, 525 smiths –
such as the Rechabites – refrained from drinking wine or beer in order not to reveal trade se-
crets when drunk. He is thus of the opinion that traditions, such as divulged in Jeremiah 35
concerning the Rechabites, do not idealise these smiths.
Sinai – or Horeb – was named the "Mountain of God", and nomads worshipped there before
the divine call to Moses. It appears that this mountain was an "extraterritorial holy site", vis-
ited by various tribes and ethnic groups in the area. Ancient poems mention several locations
in the Sinai desert as places of the theophany of Yahweh; it therefore seems that a tribal
league existed at Sinai. The occurrence of Yahweh-worship among the Kenite/Rechabite
tribes in the Wilderness area is supported by Egyptian records. 526 Early biblical poetry re-
flects the origin of Yahwism, consistently portraying Yahweh as a warrior marching from the
south-east. An ongoing debate amongst scholars concerns the questions, what the religious
roots of the Israelite nation were, and how they found their God Yahweh.
Cook527 denotes that 'scholarly revisionists and challengers now question the historical roots
of Israel's traditional covenantal faith', but in his research he determined that these beliefs
521
McNutt 1994:110-113.
522
523
McNutt 1994:112.
524
1 Chronicles 2:55.
525
Benjamin 1994:137.
526
See discussions in § 2.6, § 4.3.4 and § 5.3, concerning these Egyptian records, referring to Yhw, the Shasu,
Seir and Edom.
527
Cook 2004:1.
464
were not the product of a long historical religious and cultural development, 'but an early, mi-
nority perspective from outside Israel's and Judah's central state culture'. He argues that alt-
hough prophets – such as Hosea – advocated a Yahweh-alone worship, true monotheism only
emerged at the time of the Babylonian exile. The Israelite society and culture were complex
and diverse and did not develop as a whole towards monotheism. The traditions and beliefs
of biblical Yahwism were preserved by prophets, in common with Hosea and Micah, as well
as by certain communities in the Israelite society, despite changing social situations. He con-
tends that archaeological evidence suggests that the view of Yahweh – being unattached to
natural phenomena, and incomparable to earthly beings – was probably not a late develop-
ment out of Canaanite religion. Standing stones that are found throughout the Negeb may
thus not be a heritage of Canaanite worship, but perhaps that of Midianite and Kenite cul-
tures.528
Cook,529 furthermore, mentions that the tradition of a "Sinai theology" – thus covenantal be-
lief – required allegiance to Yahweh. Minority groups at the periphery of society were parti-
sans to this theology. These groups assisted in the reforms of kings Hezekiah and Josiah, who
thereby granted recognition to their theology and incorporated some of their members within
the official Temple and palace circles. Eighth century BC prophecies of Hosea and Micah are
excellent examples of the implementation of the Sinai theology; both were members of an
alienated minority group. A degree of tension prevailed between powerful families who
linked themselves to the royal court and conservative members of dominant lineages, repre-
sented by their elders. Conservative Levites were, for instance – despite an authentic genea-
logical pedigree – disenfranchised. A distinction existed between Levites who traced their
descent from the Elides of Shiloh and the Aaronide line of priests – particularly those known
as Zadokites.
Although Van der Toorn530 suggests that the Kenite hypothesis be maintained in a modified
form, he finds it "highly plausible" that the Kenites and related marginal groups 'introduced
Israel to the worship of Yahweh'.
For a detailed discussion of the Kenites, see paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5, in particular. Alt-
hough the Hebrew Bible refers only sparsely to this group they are linked to one of the most
528
Cook 2004:4, 10-13, 36-37.
529
Cook 2004:267-277.
530
465
important events in the lives of the Israelite people, albeit indirectly. According to the Kenite
hypothesis, the Kenites – and the Midianites – were the peoples who introduced Moses to the
cult of Yahweh, before he was confronted by Yahweh from the burning bush.
Scholars have identified the Cain narrative of Genesis 4 as the aetiological legend of the
Kenites – Cain therefore being their eponymous ancestor. Seven generations of the primeval
period – as designated in Genesis 4:17-22 – end in Lamech and his three sons. Cain's de-
scendants thus – through the sons of Lamech – represent the specific occupational groups
with which the Kenites are attributed, namely being tent dwellers, herders, musicians and
metalworkers. They made their livelihood as metal craftsmen. This trade was associated with
inferior tribes who were – accordingly – marginalised in the socio-economic sphere. Corre-
sponding marginal characteristics are evident in the biblical portrayals of the Rechabites,
Kenizzites and other peripheral clans or tribes. The Kenites were related to these different
groups. They are more explicitly linked to the Rechabites and the Midianites. According to
the Kenite hypothesis, they venerated Yahweh before the Israelites were introduced to him.
Biblical traditions depict Yahweh as coming forth from the South, thus from the regions that
were inhabited by the Kenites. Egyptian records, furthermore, refer to "Yahu in the land of
the Shasu" – the latter being identified with Edom and Seir. As the Kenites roamed these ter-
ritories, the Shasu Bedouins probably had, amongst others, Kenites in their midst. Their par-
ticular craft required a nomadic lifestyle, which, in its turn, availed them the opportunity to
spread their religious belief.
The Rechabites, allegedly related to the Kenites, were also a tribe – or clan – of metalsmiths
whose peculiar lifestyle was probably a result of their occupational pattern. They were a puri-
tanical clan-like group who lived as migrants. Wine-drinking, house-building and vineyard
husbandry were religiously prohibited as a protest against the city life of the Divided Monar-
chy. Their way of life was set as an example of the nomadic ideal. The expression 'Jonadab
[or Jehonadab] the son of Rechab, our father', 531 could be an indication that Jonadab, or Rech-
ab, was the founder of this group. As there is no information on Rechab himself, the name of
this "order" might have been in commemoration of a distant ancestor. Their actual origins
are, however, obscure. Apart from the reference in 1 Chronicles 2:55 that links the Recha-
bites to the scribes in Jabez, 1 Chronicles 4 alludes to the Rechabites, substantiating the sug-
gestion that they were a guild of craftsmen. 532 According to 1 Chronicles 2:18-20, 50-55,
531
Jeremiah 35:6.
532
See in particular 1 Chronicles 4:9-10, 12, 14.
466
the three families of scribes – the Tirathites, Shimeathites and Sucathites – were descendants
of Caleb; the latter were thus also related to the Kenites, and accordingly to the Rechabites.
'Biblical material dealing with the Rechabites is quite limited.' 533 In 2 Kings 10, Jehonadab
the son of Rechab, is connected to Jehu, just before the latter wiped out the house of Ahab in
Samaria. There is no indication what Jehonadab's alliance with Jehu was. Jeremiah 35 is the
main source of information concerning the Rechabites. This chapter describes a meeting of
the prophet Jeremiah with representatives of the Rechabites in the Jerusalem Temple during,
approximately 600 BC. A clan of the Rechabites was brought to the Temple where Jeremiah
invited them to drink wine. The Rechabites, however, refused, as 'we will drink no wine, for
Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, commanded us, "you shall drink no wine … . You
shall not build a house; you shall not sow seed; you shall not plant or have a vineyard; but you
shall live in tents all your days … ." … we have obeyed and done all that Jonadab our father
commanded us'. 534 Jeremiah – as instructed by the word of Yahweh – sets the Rechabites as
an example for the Judeans and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Van der Toorn535 denotes that
'the Rechabites present a suitable entry into the matter of religious pluralism. Whether they
were a sect, a religious order, or a group of itinerant craftsmen … .'
In Jehonadab's [Jonadab's] name the noun nādib is combined with a theophoric element. The
noun formed on the root n-d-b was 'used to denote a member of the ruling class of the monar-
chical period, an administrator or head of an influential family – in short, a man of position, a
member of the urban nobility'. 536 All biblical names containing this particular root belong to
members of this social class; it is therefore unlikely that Jehonadab was an exception. The
Rechabites probably belonged to a guild of metalworkers who were engaged in the manufac-
turing of chariots and weaponry. Jehonadab could thus have been either a chariot maker or a
chariot driver. The designation "ben", or "son" – as in Jehonadab ben Rechab – could also be
an indication that the specific person was a member of an occupational group or guild. Heads
of such guilds were given the title "father" – as in "Jonadab our father" – while apprentices
were called "sons". The epithet "ben Rechab" may thus be an intimation that Jehonadab be-
longed to such a group.
533
Frick 1971:281.
534
Jeremiah 35:6-10.
535
536
Frick 1971:282.
467
The Rechabite lifestyle is the normal way of nomads. They dwelled in tents in opposition to
sedentary culture. Total abstinence from wine was an attempt to preserve the conditions of
nomadism. They might have influenced the vow of the Nazirite, prohibiting the consumption
of wine. Scholars have disparate views on whether the Rechabites had any effect on the Naz-
arites. Frick537 argues that the Rechabite discipline could be interpreted as characteristic of a
guild of craftsmen, specifically appropriate to smiths. Their lifestyle does not, by definition,
present an idealised desert life; similarly their obedience to discipline and their non-
agriculture mode of life were occupational norms, and not a religious vocation.
Together with the Kenites and Calebites, the Rechabites were connected with the area on the
border of Edom and Judah – south-east of Palestine; this leads to the hypothesis that non-
Israelite groups were instrumental therein to introduce the cult of Yahweh into Judah and Isra-
el. Before they eventually merged with the Judeans, the Rechabites had lived in a kind of
symbiosis with them. As a clan, they later dwelled in permanent settlements in the Judean
hills, south of Jerusalem, rather than in the desert or on the desert fringes.
The Israelite religion has a 'history of the interaction of different religious groups and tradi-
tions in a culture that was neither politically nor cultically unified'. 538 The Rechabites were
one of these religious groups. Their lifestyle was a message of protest and resistance. They
were, however, not merely a phenomenon of social opposition, or an order of religious fanat-
ics, but were a distinct social minority group with particular religious convictions. They pre-
sumably represented an ideal which was adopted by prophets, such as Hosea and Micah.
More than one person with the name Caleb, as well as variant forms Chelub or Chelubai, are
distinguished in the Masoretic Text. The Calebites are the descendants of Caleb. One of the
twelve spies sent out by Moses to scout the land of Canaan was Caleb, the son of Jephunneh
from the tribe of Judah. Caleb is also identified as a Kenizzite; the Calebites were a Kenizzite
clan. They existed as a distinct group in southern Palestine. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles
reflect inconsistencies of lineage and are confusing in the light of other biblical information
relating to persons named Caleb. Jephunneh is known only in connection with this Caleb.
Another Caleb, the son of Hezron, appears only in the genealogies of Judah. The Chronicler
does not attempt to relate the two Calebs.
537
Frick 1971:284-285.
538
468
The Calebites were – according to the Chronicler – related to the Kenizzites and the Je-
rahmeelites, all who were linked to the tribe of Judah. These non-Israelites were obviously
considered to be legitimate members of the tribe of Judah. Early genealogies indicate that the
Calebites were associated with Seir; they could therefore also have been connected to the
Shasu. The intricate Calebite genealogies in Chronicles seem to suggest that these peoples
penetrated the tribe of Judah and subsequently intermingled with them. The figure of Caleb
therefore 'represents the incorporation of a foreign strain into the tribe of Judah' 539.
Kenaz – son of Eliphaz, firstborn of Esau and Adah – is regarded the eponymous ancestor of
the Kenizzites; he also functioned as an Edomite clan chief. The Kenizzites were a non-
Israelite ethnic group, who - together with diverse tribal alliances – occupied the southern re-
gion of the Palestinian central hill country. They eventually also merged with the tribe of Ju-
dah.
The Chronicler identifies Jerahmeel as the son of Hezron, descendant of Judah. Apart from
being an integral part of the tribe of Judah, the Jerahmeelites were also one of the most im-
portant clans of that tribe. They were probably one of the nomadic tribes on the border region
of Judah, and only incorporated into the tribe when the latter had settled. The Chronicler pre-
sents Caleb and Jerahmeel as brothers – and sons of Hezron. The link appears nowhere else
in the Hebrew Bible and is thus probably the Chronicler's own contribution to incorporate
Caleb and Jerahmeel together into the structure of Judah's genealogy. The Chronicler applies
and adapts the tradition of Judah to his own time. Inconsistencies in the genealogical list of
the Jerahmeelites are illustrated in more than one instance in 1 Chronicles 2. Some of the Je-
rahmeelite descendants had Hurrian names. It is not possible to ascertain whether their kin-
ship groups – of which there were probably at least twelve – were genealogically linked, or
whether they were extended families.
An extra-biblical reference denoting the name "Arad of the Jerahmeelites", as well as the
names Jerahmeel, Onam and Peleth, was identified on a hieroglyphic inscription of pharaoh
Shishak at the entrance of a temple at Karnak. Due to this identification, it is feasible to as-
sume that the Jerahmeelites dwelled at, or in close proximity to Arad in the Negeb – thus in
the same vicinity as the Kenites. This clan practised pastoral nomadism and was most likely
semi-nomadic. The Chronicler's reference to Jerahmeel as the firstborn of Hezron – grandson
539
Johnson 1962:483.
469
of Judah – might be an indication of an earlier period when the Jerahmeelites were the largest
and strongest of the families of Hezron. Although references to the Jerahmeelites in the He-
brew Bible are sparse, it seems that they were an important clan – albeit one of the marginal
groups. As the Chronicler obviously compiled his genealogical lists in the light of his own
time, the Jerahmeelites might have had a significant bearing on post-exilic matters. During
their semi-nomadic sojourn in the Negeb they clearly had contact with the Kenites, and sub-
sequently with their cult. It is therefore possible that they venerated the same god – Yahweh –
as the Kenites did, and might thus also have belonged to a minority Yahweh-alone movement,
and thereby had an influence on the establishing of a Yahweh-alone monotheism.
As pointed out in paragraph 6.2.6, the Levites are not discussed in detail; only their relevance
as a marginalised group is indicated.
The deuteronomistic legislation refers to the Israelite clergy simply as Levitical priests,
whereas Ezekiel distinguishes between Levitical priests and the sons of Zadok. The latter are
represented – by Ezekiel – as being superior to the ordinary Levites, for the reason that they
remained faithful to the Jerusalem Temple, while the Levites, who ministered at various sanc-
tuaries or high places, were guilty of idolatrous practices. According to Ezekiel, only Za-
dokites were allowed to come close to Yahweh. Older texts in the Hebrew Bible indicate that
the Levites were not initially included in the priestly caste; neither did they originally form a
tribe. They were, however, a group separated from the people. Yet, at least some of them
were Jerusalem Temple Levites. They probably assisted in the establishment of the Monar-
chy, and thereby remained in its service in different capacities.
After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the necessity arose amongst the people to
interpret this catastrophe theologically. The Levites 'who probably had put the idea of monol-
atry on its way to monotheism', 540 were, however, dropped from the cult. The traditional
Temple priests did not tolerate the inclusion of the Levites. Six Levites – described as 'heads
of the fathers' houses of the Levites'541 – are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:4-10. The inten-
tion of the writer was clearly to secure the Levitical pedigree of the priestly families by identi-
fying them with the earliest descendants of Levi. The particular attention paid to genealogical
reconstructions during the early Second Temple Period might be an indication of the instabil-
ity of many Levitical families during that time. In contrast to Ezekiel's condemnation
540
Fechter 2000:693.
541
1 Chronicles 15:12.
470
of the Levites, the Chronicler composed a history to demonstrate the important role of the
threatened Levitical families.
The history of the Levites points to three periods, namely desert, tribal and monarchy. Ac-
cording to early traditions, the Levites served as priests in the desert period. They encamped
around the Tabernacle and took charge of the transportation, setting up and taking down of it.
Although the Levites were related by blood, the designation could indicate that this related
group had a common function. During the tribal period several clans with such a collective
responsibility of the priesthood could have been joined together to form the tribe "Levi".
As a result of Shiloh's fall, the Levites had to seek employment at various sanctuaries during
the Monarchical Period to support themselves. By the establishment of Levitical cities, Da-
vid, no doubt, tried to help the jobless and homeless Levites. The most significant event for
the Levites during the time of Solomon was the adoption of Zadok as chief priest. During the
division of the kingdom, the northern Levitical cities were separated from Jerusalem; Jerobo-
am I appointed non-Levites as priests. As a result of Jeroboam's action some Levites left their
homes and went to Jerusalem. They were, however, not received with enthusiasm by the Za-
dokites. They obviously then had limited employment opportunities. The Levites who re-
mained in the North probably preserved many traditions which were later incorporated into
the Book of Deuteronomy. The northern prophet Hosea in all likelihood allied himself with
the Levites in opposition to the cult introduced by Jeroboam I. The prophet Jeremiah con-
demns the sins of the priests; his words might have been a polemic against the Zadokite
priesthood in Jerusalem.
An unresolved debate amongst scholars concerns the issue 'whether Levi ever constituted a
secular tribe identical in nature with the other tribes of Israel'. 542 The precise origins of the
Levites are therefore uncertain. Kadesh was the centre of a loose confederation of semi-
sedentary clans and tribes who shared the common name "Midian", but preserved their identi-
ties within the larger entity. Some of these groups were probably Yahwistic, and also incor-
porated in the assemblages known as the Shasu of Yahu". It is, however, not possible to es-
tablish whether the Levites at Kadesh were a secular tribe or clan. These Levites apparently
became associated with Judah at Kadesh. According to biblical evidence, 'the Levites were an
indigent tribe, deprived of an inheritance of their own and scattered throughout the land of
542
Robinson 1978:4.
471
Israel'. 543 The Levitical cities – where the Levites settled – probably had originally been cul-
tic centres. Certain towns had the obligation to grant residential and pasture rights to the Le-
vites.
Characteristics of a person who fears Yahweh are listed in Psalm 15. These qualities might be
a reflection on the Yahweh-alone members who were, seemingly, a well-defined group. The
unique discipline of the Rechabites was used as an example of people who remained faithful
to the commandments of Yahweh. They resisted the religious pluralism of particularly North-
ern Israel that was openly endorsed and propagated by the State. 544 Rivalry between the
priests and prophets of Yahweh and those of other gods might have contributed to a Yahweh-
alone movement; the dominant religion of the Israelite Monarchy was polytheistic. A theolo-
gy – developed from the Deuteronomic School – gradually came into conflict with the tradi-
tional religion of the Israelites. The prophets – who were indeed a minority – were outspoken
in their opposition to the polytheistic folk religion, and were undoubtedly advocates of the
Yahweh-alone movement. Biblical Yahwism could be identified as a theological institution, a
covenantal belief – designated "Sinai theology". Eighth century BC prophets Hosea and Mi-
cah are excellent examples of the implementation of this theology – partisans thereof 'were
minority groups at the periphery of society'. 545
Jeremiah, who was obviously sympathetic to, and more likely a supporter or member of the
Yahweh-alone movement, reproved, not only the nation as a whole, but more specifically the
priests, false prophets and the kings. He opposed and criticised popular Yahwism, which was
a form of the older Canaanite religion. The existence of conflicting groups is reflected in the
Book of Jeremiah. These groups were involved in power games and employed religion to
protect their interests. Some scholars indicate that the Jeremiah scroll has a notably close re-
lationship to the Deuteronomistic History. However, scholars have reached no consensus on
the matter concerning the characteristics that make a text deuteronomistic. Jeremiah probably
had some knowledge of the contents and style of Deuteronomy.
There are many indications that Yahweh was worshipped in the regions of Edom, Seir, Midi-
an, Sinai, Negeb and other southern Palestinian areas. It seems, furthermore, that nomadic
and semi-nomadic, as well as sedentary tribes and clans who frequented these
543
Haran 1978:112.
544
Under the Omride Dynasty (ninth century BC) religious institutions were supported by the State on a basis of
equality. To avoid favouritism, Yahweh was no longer the only national deity (Van der Toorn 1995:252-253).
545
Cook 2004:267.
472
territories, were to a great extent related to each other. Therefore, if Yahweh was worshipped
by some of these groups – as has been indicated in previous paragraphs – it stands to reason
that kindred tribes and clans probably also would have venerated Yahweh. The relationship
between tribes (or clans) – specifically Kenites, Rechabites, Calebites, Kenizzites and Je-
rahmeelites – has been indicated earlier in this paragraph. Genealogical links, likewise, have
been pointed out.
Israelite tradition, as well as Egyptian documentation, places Yahweh in the regions of Edom
and Seir. The Edomites and Midianites were related; Jethro, the Midianite priest brought a
burnt-offering and sacrifices to Yahweh. The Edomites and Israelites had the same ancestor,
therefore the cult of Yahweh probably would have been known amongst the Edomites. De-
spite such traditions, there is, however, no evidence that they venerated Yahweh exclusively;
they recognised other gods, particularly a deity called Qos.
Together with the tribes and clans discussed in this chapter, there are also some other groups
– mentioned in the Hebrew Bible – connected to the southern Palestinian regions. In all in-
stances there are relatively few references to these peoples. They were thus either regarded as
being on the periphery of society, or they were deliberately marginalised by later compilers of
the Masoretic Text. As there are sound indications that Yahweh was venerated in the southern
regions, some of these groups probably later belonged to the Yahweh-alone movement.
In the following chapter – Chapter 7 – the origin and settlement of the Israelite nation is brief-
ly discussed. Although seemingly insignificant – and with minimal references in the Masoret-
ic Text to the different marginal groups – these peoples, on the periphery of society, apparent-
ly played a significant role in the establishment of a Yahweh-alone worship. According to my
hypothesis, they were eventually the people who carried the concept of Yahweh monotheism
into the exilic period. Following the genealogical lists of Chronicles, these marginal groups
were evidently all related; either absorbed into the tribe of Judah, or intentionally linked by
the Chronicler to this tribe, adapting the genealogies to traditions of his own time. It is there-
fore necessary that I am knowledgeable about the settlement of the different tribes that even-
tually constituted an Israelite Monarchy.
A synopsis of the characteristics of the marginal southern groups – Table 3 – follows hereaf-
ter, as well as a diagram of possible genealogical links among marginal groups – Figure 5.
473
Table 3. Synopsis of characteristics of marginal southern groups
To substantiate my hypothesis regarding the post-exilic influence of marginal minority
groups, I discussed – despite sparse information in the Masoretic Text – relevant southern
tribes or clans, namely the Kenites, Rechabites, Calebites, Kenizzites and Jerahmeelites. Alt-
hough there are numerous references to the Levites in the Hebrew Bible, I regard them also as
a group who was marginalised – particularly by the mainstream priests – and likewise disen-
franchised. There are many indications that the Levites – or at least a substantial number of
them – joined the ranks of these minorities who maintained the Yahweh-alone movement.
Excluding the Levites, the five relevant tribes or clans exhibit many analogous characteristics.
These general features are listed below; they are not all necessarily applicable to each one of
the tribes or clans under discussion.
• Their origins can be traced to the southern regions, particularly to the Sinai and Negeb, the
areas inhabited by the Edomites, and also the territories roamed by the Midianites.
• Genealogically they all seem to be related, one way or another; the origin of the Kenites
signifies Cain as their eponymous ancestor.
• Apart from the Kenites, their descent is ultimately from the lineage of Abraham.
• The Chronicler links them genealogically to the tribe of Judah; albeit to create a positive
lineage, or by assimilation into the tribe of Judah – they probably were eventually absorbed
into the tribe of Judah.
• They followed a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle as livestock farmers living in tents;
some later settled in towns or cities.
• They were metalworkers, travelling as far as the northern regions, to trade their wares or
ply their craft; the southern areas were known for their copper mining activities.
• The trade of metallurgy was associated with inferior tribes; they were, accordingly, mar-
ginalised in the socio-economic sphere.
• As borderline tribes or clans, they were never fully incorporated into the Israelite society.
• The Rechabites abstained from wine-drinking, house-building and vineyard husbandry;
their life was set as an example of the nomadic ideal.
• The Kenites, who venerated Yahweh, are linked particularly to the Midianites and Recha-
bites.
• Being inhabitants of the South – from where Yahweh came – they probably were familiar
with the cult of Yahweh, and in many instances might have practised this cult.
474
• Many of them were probably members of the Shasu Bedouins who wandered in the Sinai,
the Negeb, Edom and Seir; the Shasu were also known in Egypt, and the Syrian and other
northern areas.
• The Shasu were connected to Yahu from Edom and Seir; they therefore probably wor-
shipped Yahu [Yahweh].
• These marginal groups – specifically the Rechabites – were evidently members of the
Yahweh-alone movement, maintaining their Yahweh-alone religion throughout the time of
the Israelite Monarchy; they thereby played a significant role in the establishment of a
Yahweh-alone monotheistic faith during the exilic and post-exilic periods.
475
Figure 5. Diagram of possible genealogical links among marginal groups 546
546
This diagram is a proposed schematic representation of possible genealogical links among marginal groups;
included also is a list of relevant references (English Standard Version).
476
CHAPTER 7
ORIGIN OF THE ISRAELITE NATION: SYNOPTIC SURVEY
In chapters 5 and 6 the Kenites and related marginal groups are deliberated. According to my
hypothesis, these groups – who were later mainly affiliated to the tribe of Judah – were pri-
marily involved in the spreading of the Yahwistic faith, and later in the formation of a mono-
theistic Yahweh-alone Judaic religion. It is therefore important that I am knowledgeable
about the emergence, settlement and establishment of the Israelite nation, to deduce to what
extent and at which stage these marginal groups could have had contact with tribes – or had
merged with tribes – who later comprised this nation. It is thus evident that the origin of the
Israelite nation should follow on the previous two chapters.
7.1 Introduction
Philip Davies1 construes ancient Israel as a "scholarly construct". He argues that this Israel
lies between literature and history and is unlike the biblical Israel which is brought to life in
the biblical text. He mentions that a literary construct does not necessarily have an historical
existence. He furthermore poses the question as to where the biblical literature came from
that produced the history of a biblical Israel. Scholars should deliberate whether such a social
and political reality – as that which the biblical concepts reflect – really ever existed. He also
indicates that, when reconstructed historically, biblical Israel is 'a diverse, confusing and even
contradictory notion'. 2 Unless the historical counterpart of biblical Israel is investigated inde-
pendently of biblical literature, there is no way to judge the distance between these two "Is-
raels", or to claim that the biblical Israel has any specific relationship to history. He denotes
that biblical scholarship is viewed mainly as a theological discipline. 3
In response to Davis' conception, Hurvitz 4 mentions that, should such "non-conformist" theo-
ries be accepted, it calls for 'far-reaching – if not revolutionary – modifications in widely pre-
vailing views regarding the nature and development of our biblical corpus'. Every postulation
by Davies should be critically evaluated. He, furthermore, denotes that a long-established
scholarly practice necessitates a review of applicable earlier studies whenever a new thesis is
put forward. Davies, however, does not adopt this practice. Hurvitz, 5 moreover, does not
1
Davies 1992:16-18, 22, 46, 49.
2
Davies 1992:49.
3
Davies 1992:60.
4
Hurvitz 1997:301-302.
5
Hurvitz 1997:303, 305, 307.
477
agree with Davies that there is "extraordinarily little" extra-biblical material available as ex-
ternal control to date classical Hebrew. He indicates that, although Hebrew inscriptions –
dated to the First Temple Period – are relatively few, they are by no means negligible.
Scholars generally agree that textual sources in the Hebrew Bible are the result of a final re-
daction of the tradition at a rather late date. Dever 6 denotes that, although 'archaeology can-
not be used to "prove the Bible" … there are a number of points at which datable Iron Age
archaeological evidence and literary reference in the Bible do "converge" in such a way as to
suggest contemporaneity – a fact that responsible historians cannot deny'. 7 Numerous biblical
references are so well documented archaeologically that aspects, such as socio-political or-
ganisation, material culture and origins can be described positively; many of these correspond
to biblical allusions in such a manner that a post-exilic editor hardly could have invented the-
se passages. Some of this well-documented material culture could readily be distinguished as
a people and nation-state that could be Israel. Dever, 8 therefore, differs from Davies who
proffers that an entity Israel never existed. He, furthermore, suggests that the phenomenon of
"ancient Israel" should be approached anew in a 'truly critical, comparative, generative, syn-
thetic, and ecumenical' manner.9 We could, however, never really know how it actually was
historically or archaeologically. 10 The "archaeological revolution" has brought about a radical
variance of the biblical story. If the historical figure of Moses – as described in the Hebrew
Bible – did not exist, and the exodus and conquest never happened, the implications are
enormous and would seem to undermine the concept and foundations of Judaism, and even of
the Christian faith.11
According to Zertal, 12 although archaeology applies modern technologies, many conclusions

are based on intuition rather than on objective measure. If the interpretation of results could
not depend on reliable historical sources, archaeology then becomes a technical investigation
of material culture. Finkelstein and Na’aman13 denote that, since the 1920s, results of archae-
ological excavations in respect of research on the "Israelite settlement", 'have stood in the eye
of the storm'. During the past number of decades the pace of archaeological fieldwork in Is-
rael has increased so rapidly that discussions which were not up to date became obsolete.
6
Dever 1997b:301.
7
Dever 1997b:301.
8
Dever 1997b:302.
9
Dever 1997b:305.
10
Dever 1997b:293.
11
Dever 1997a:45.
12
Zertal 1991:30.
13
Finkelstein & Na’aman 1994:9.
478
Out-of-date hypotheses on the rise of early Israel should be replaced by new theories. There
has been tremendous development in research and on the analysis of documentary evidence
discovered over the whole region of Western Asia – as a result of extensive fieldwork – as
well as progress in modern biblical criticism. The historical and cultural interpretation of ar-
chaeological finds is a much debated and complicated undertaking. The same set of data may
yield disparate conclusions.14 The quest for Israel's origins is complicated as the Hebrew Bi-
ble – in the modern sense – is not a history book, and it never claimed to be one. It is almost
exclusively sacred history written from a divine perspective. There are, thus, particular limi-
tations to glean authentic historical information from its pages. 15
Finkelstein16 mentions that it is a problem to identify an Iron Age I site as a place occupied by
early Israelites. During that period other ethnic entities – particularly Canaanites – were also
active in the same areas. Therefore, before attempting to characterise Israelite settlement
sites, an Iron I Israelite should be defined. However, distinctions between different groups
who settled in the hill country seem to have been very vague. 'The formation of the Israelite
identity was a long, intricate, and complex process', 17 which was probably completed only at
the beginning of the Monarchy. Likewise, from a geographical and historical perspective, the
Judean hills are important to understand the Israelite settlement process;18 an activity – in the-
se, as well as adjacent regions – whereon archaeological research could shed light. Dever 19
agrees that the emergence of ancient Israel coincided with 'a gradual and exceedingly com-
plex process of socio-economic change' in Palestine; a development that covered more than
two centuries. Sever20 indicates that the correlation between an ancient society and its envi-
ronment is an aspect relevant to the study of prehistory. According to Portugali, 21 processes
which happened in Iron Age I, wherein sedentary and nomadic groups 'coexisted in complex
relations of interaction and conflict,' are in agreement with those that occurred in Early
Bronze I and in the Intermediate Bronze Age. During all these periods a transition took place
from an agricultural to an urban society.
14
Finkelstein & Na’aman 1994:12, 15.
15
Dever 1997a:20.
16
Finkelstein 1988:27,47.
17
18
The Judean hills form an isolated mountainous bloc, bordered by arid regions on two sides. Invaded Canaan-
ite cities that were not part of the unified conquests – as described in biblical narratives – were mostly connected
with this region (Finkelstein 1988:47).
19
Dever 1988:345.
20
Sever 1988:281.
21
Portugali 1994:203.
479
Knowledge of the geography of Palestine is indispensable for the biblical scholar in his re-
search of Israel's history. Geographical features of Palestine – such as mountains and fertile
plains – had an influence on the settlement patterns of Israel. Similarly, rainfall patterns,
droughts, deserts, oases and lack of natural harbours also influenced the history of the inhabit-
ants. Certain geographical features had a direct bearing on Israel's worldview and religious
perspective – Yahweh was primarily a Mountain God and God of the desert.22
Dever23 denotes that increased excavations at supposedly Proto-Israelite sites, and comparison
of their material culture, economy and social structure with contemporary sites – presumably
Canaanite or Philistine – are the only way to address the critical question of "ethnic identity".
It is, however, not possible to recognise archaeological differences, or legitimately attach an
ethnic label to these assemblages when comparing Early Iron Age sites – particularly in the
hill country. Some archaeologists argue that they simply cannot distinguish between Israelite,
Canaanite and Philistine locations. The hill country complex is, notwithstanding, 'archaeolog-
ically distinct, even unique'.24 Dever,25 nonetheless, is of the opinion that 'ethnic conscious-
ness, which is an essential concomitant of national identity and statehood, is often thought to
be difficult or even impossible to trace in the archaeological record, but that is not necessarily
the case'. Archaeological data seem to suggest that the early Israelite peoples were a motley
group.26 Matters of archaeological concern in the search for Israelite identity are the appro-
priate use of the term ethnicity, the question of suitable methodology to identify those people
who formed the early state, and, subsequently, 'the impact of research on the role of ethnicity
in the developed kingdom of Israel to the larger question of ethnicity and state formation in
general'. 27 The problem of the ethnicity of the early Israelites, and how to determine ethnicity
from the material culture in Iron I Palestine, have come to the forefront of research in recent
years. Finkelstein 28 deduces that material culture from this particular period and region is not
sufficient to enable the drawing of clear ethnic boundaries.
During the final centuries of the Bronze Age and the transition from the Bronze to Iron Ages,
the collapse of great power structures was witnessed, creating a mosaic of local cultures and
ethnicities, which eventually forged the foundations of the biblical world. The previously
22
Scheffler 1996:301-302, 305.
23
Dever 1997a:37, 42.
24
Dever 1997a:42.
25
Dever 1998b:420.
26
Dever 1997a:40.
27
Small 1997:271.
28
480
interconnected world system became fragmented and produced those peoples 'who later ap-
peared as the key protagonists and antagonists in the biblical narrative'.29 The interaction of
"early Israel" with other groups has created some of the best-known biblical narratives. 30
Knowledge of historical and cultural context of the broader eastern Mediterranean is essential
when dealing with the formative period of the biblical world.31 There seems to have been a
direct correlation between fluctuations in food availability, tribalism, nomadism, sedenterisa-
tion and the larger world system; tribalism being the mechanism that enabled small kin-
related groups to adapt to super-tribal politics.32
Mendenhall33 poses the question, who were the biblical Israelites? He denotes that, apart
from one passage – which scholars have agreed is a textual error – the term Yiśre’ēlī does not
occur in the early parts of the Hebrew Bible. It is, therefore, a "confusion in terminology" to
refer to the "Israelites" as an ethnic group during the biblical period. Dever 34 mentions that
the field of biblical studies has been inundated 'with heated and often acrimonious discus-
sions' on the topic whether there was at all an "ancient" or "biblical" Israel. There are even
disputes on the authenticity of "a" Hebrew Bible. Although these assertions by revisionists 35
are rapidly becoming an ideology of a group, it nonetheless poses a threat to biblical studies.
Schloen36 mentions that the perception of the concept of "historical" origins, as well as the
term "Israel", has been modified since the time of Albright. 37 Some scholars place the emer-
gence of an Israelite national identity early in the ninth century BC – or even later. He is of
the opinion that firm conclusions cannot be drawn, due to insufficient data. The "Israel" that
existed at the beginning of the Iron Age, and the "Israel" of later periods differed from one
another, depending on where the point of origin is established. He concludes that, although
dramatic narratives of historical development are told, 'they are not all equally valid or valua-
ble'. 38
29
Killebrew 2005:1.
30
Compare the accounts of the exodus from Egypt, Joshua's conquest of Canaan and hostile contact between the
Israelites and Philistines (Killebrew 2005:1).
31
Killebrew 2005:1, 21. See Killebrew (2005:21-50) for a discussion of the crisis in the eastern Mediterranean
during the thirteenth century BC.
32
LaBianca & Younker 1998:403.
33
34
Dever 1998a:39, 50.
35
See discussion on "revisionists" in § 8.9.
36
Schloen 2002:57-59.
37
William Foxwell Albright. American archaeologist and biblical scholar (1891-1971) (Kenyon 1987:19).
38
Schloen 2002:62.
481
'The Settlement of the Israelites in the 12th and 11th centuries BCE, and their transformation
from a society of isolated tribes into an organized kingdom, is one of the most exciting, in-
spiring, and at the same time controversial chapters in the history of the Land of Israel.' 39
This conundrum has been debated intermittently by scholars from viewpoints of the biblical
narrative, historical geography and archaeology. Finds from major excavations during the
1920s and 1930s were interpreted in relation to the biblical description of the conquest of Ca-
naan. Since that time, reconstruction of the process of settlement is an 'illustration of the ex-
tent to which research on the Settlement has been rife with speculation and imagination'. 40
Analysis of the genealogies of the characters associated with the exodus events reveals that
six of the Israelite tribes41 were not part of the original group of federated tribes. Israelite tra-
ditions were slightly remodelled when these tribes became associated with, and accepted as
part of Israel. 42
The question remains, 'what was "early Israel", as a people? What, if anything, was unique,
or even different, about early Israel?' 43 The population group of Early Iron I villages – ar-
chaeologically identified– do signify a new ethnic group.44 Could these people be labelled
"Israelites"? Dever45 maintains that the claim in biblical texts, that the appearance of early
Israel in history was unequalled – validated by its Yahwistic faith – is an ideological "mask".
He furthermore denotes that, like any other group of people, Israel evolved mainly out of lo-
cal conditions. Such people survive by adaptation when conditions change. In reality most
Israelites had local Canaanite ancestors. Bimson 46 argues that, when archaeological evidence
is taken into consideration, Mendenhall's "peasant revolt theory" 47 is not an accurate account
of events which took place in Canaan during the period at the end of the Late Bronze Age and
beginning of the Iron Age. Scholars lately generally agree that the Israelites were originally
inhabitants of Canaan. He denotes that – in the light of more knowledge and better perception
39
40
41
The tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar and Zebulon (Zevit 2001:640).
42
Zevit 2001:640.
43
Dever 1993:23.
44
To qualify as an "ethnic" group, these people should be 'biologically self-perpetuating'; share a 'fundamental,
recognizable, relatively uniform set of cultural values, including language'; constitute 'a partly independent inter-
action sphere', have 'a membership that defines itself, as well as being defined by others, as a category distinct
from other categories of the same order'; and perpetuate 'its sense of separate identity both by developing rules
for maintaining "ethnic boundaries" as well as for participating in inter-ethnic social encounters' (Dever
1993:23).
45
Dever 1993:24, 31.
46
Bimson 1989:10, 13.
47
See § 7.4 for a brief discussion of the different "settlement" theories.
482
– biblical traditions are not incompatible with some of Canaan's archaeological, social and
economic history.
The conquest of Egypt's foes in Syria-Palestine is briefly mentioned in Merenptah's "Israel

Stela". 48 An inscription on this stele celebrates Merenptah's defeat of the Libyans in ca 1209
BC [or ca 1207 BC–see paragraph 2.7]. "Israel" is referred to in this particular context:
' … Gezer is seized; Yano‛am is made non-existent;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more; … .'49
According to this inscription, there was thus a recognisable entity "Israel" in the land of Ca-
naan during the thirteenth century BC, which confirms that they were a group – settled in Pal-
estine50 – with which there had to be reckoned with. 51 The question is whether this entity was
pre-monarchical biblical Israel. There is no reason to doubt the assumption that it was. The
"Israel" referred to in the stele was probably nomadic; part of Canaan's population was thus
already known as Israel. Some scholars assume that archaeology provides a sufficient basis
to reconstruct Israel's origins – it is, however, unlikely that such evidence alone would give
insight into the date and nature of Israel's origins in Canaan. 52 Hasel53 indicates that – regard-
ing the reference in Merenptah's inscription that Israel's 'seed is no more' – the term "seed"
could be defined as "fruit, seed" with reference to planting, but also to "offspring, posterity".
However, according to him, the particular term prt, "seed", in the inscription does not refer to
human beings. 54
Most archaeologists agree that, should there be archaeological evidence for the emergence of
Israel in Canaan, such an occurrence should be dated at the beginning of the Iron Age, ca
1200 BC. The Merenptah Stele refers to "Israel" in ca 1209 or 1207 BC. The inscription on
this stele is an important testimony in the debate concerning the origin and rise of Israel.
Shanks55 denotes – contrary to Hasel, above – that the determinative56 linked to the name
48
Bimson 1991:10. See § 2.7 for a discussion of Merenptah's inscriptions and relief.
49
Rainey 2001:63.
50
See arguments for possible places of settlement in § 2.7.
51
Le Roux, M 1994:316.
52
Bimson 1991:13-14, 19.
53
Hasel 2003:19-20, 22.
54
For a detailed lexical and contextual discussion of the passage referring to Israel on the Merenptah Stele, see
Hasel (2003:20-26).
55
Shanks 1992:19.
56
See footnote in § 2.7 for a description of "determinative".
483
"Israel" indicates "people". Therefore, in ca 1207 BC there was a people Israel in Canaan
who was important enough for the pharaoh to boast that he had defeated them militarily. 57
The past number of years biblical readers have become 'alarmed by what they perceive as a
concerted, hostile attack on the Bible – much of it coming from reputable biblical scholars
themselves'. 58 Lately a few biblical archaeologists have joined the ranks of these scholars.
Critical biblical scholarship – from the late nineteenth century – pursued the question of "Isra-
elite origins" but never raised questions to discredit the texts. As archaeological information
increased, new data, however, brought more questions than answers. 59 Faust60 indicates that
'the attempt to identify peoples in the archaeological record is very problematic'. The previ-
ous simplistic attitude of archaeologists to associate specific material culture with particular
peoples has received much criticism and was abandoned. Archaeologists now realise that
ethnicity is too complex to be identified unreservedly with "material culture". There are,
however, 'certain relationships between material culture and ethnicity'. 61 Finds at villages in
different regions demonstrate that the social and ethnic background of the various population
groups were disparate.62
'The nature of the archaeological and historical material is such that on the one hand, we pos-
sess quantitative data which can be measured and counted, while on the other hand, quite of-
ten we need to supplement them by interpretations, even by speculations'. 63
Dever64 assesses the state of biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeology at the turn of the mil-
lennium, which has progressed 'toward independent and highly specialized professional sta-
tus'. Questions arise whether a satisfactory history of ancient Israel can be written and wheth-
er there is any certainty about the past. According to postmodernism, and the so-called revi-
sionists, 'all claims to knowledge are merely social constructs',65 implying that there are only
interpretations and no facts. Dever 66 concludes that archaeology is a discipline 'that requires
first-hand mastery of the data' related to excavated remains. In response to Dever's
57
Shanks 1992:17, 19.
58
Dever 2003:2.
59
Dever 2003:2, 4-5.
60
Faust 2000:2.
61
Faust 2000:2.
62
Faust 2000:20.
63
Portugali 1994:204.
64
Dever 2000:91.
65
Dever 2000:107.
66
Dever 2000:110.
484
assessment, Davies67 denotes that 'any reader of his [Dever's] article68 may well be seriously
misled' by his comments on so-called "minimalism". 69 In the article under discussion,
Dever70 refers to 'recent attempts of a few European "revisionist" biblical scholars such as
Davies, Lemche, Thompson and Whitelam to revive the ghost of "biblical archaeology" as
their whipping-boy in a radical attack on any historicity in the Hebrew Bible'. In reaction,
Davies71 defends the minimalistic approach, indicating that these scholars [minimalists or re-
visionists] 'insist … that archaeology alone ought to be first employed', and 'that the conclu-
sions of archaeological reconstruction be applied to evaluating the biblical stories'. Such an
evaluation 'is responsible for the recent consensus [amongst "minimalists"] that there was no
patriarchal period, no Exodus and no conquest'.
7.2 Phenomenon of interaction among nations

In the Ancient Near East, hybrid cultures were the norm – it seems that "pure" cultures never
existed. The Phoenicians, for one, were organised in a number of city-states along their
coast72 and never composed a united political entity or national state. Sidon was the leading
Phoenician city during the twelfth and early eleventh centuries BC. In Iron Age I the Sea
Peoples73 occupied the Akko74 plain. Scholars suggest that the Israelites lived in a kind of
symbiosis with the Sea Peoples and Canaanites. 75 Seals and ostraca inscribed with Phoenici-
an personal names have been found inland, which demonstrate that these people – as well as
their culture – penetrated deep into the Israelite society. 76 A number of Ugaritic texts indicate
that during the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC, new settlements in the central hill coun-
try and mountains of Palestine were the outcome of defections from city-states, as a result of
increased burdens imposed by the elite. It seems that during the transition from Iron Age I to
Iron Age II the Phoenician city-state of Tyre expanded into the Akko plain, creating a new
political and economic system there. 77
67
Davies 2000:117.
68
See bibliography in this thesis for information on this article by Dever (2000:91-116).
69
See § 8.9 for a brief discussion on minimalistic or revisionistic views on the historicity of the Masoretic Text
and an Israelite nation.
70
Dever 2000:95.
71
Davies 2000:117.
72
The Phoenician city-states were situated along the Lebanese and Syrian coast (Lehmann 2001:66).
73
See footnote on the "Sea Peoples" in § 2.7.
74
Excavations at Akko – a site in southern Phoenicia – have disclosed remains of flourishing towns from the
tenth century BC. Typical red burnished pottery and other vessels reveal close commercial connections with
Cyprus (Kenyon 1987:135).
75
Lehmann 2001:66, 89.
76
Kenyon 1987:135.
77
Lehmann 2001:89-90, 97.
485
An early connection of the Phoenicians – who were actually Canaanites from Tyre, Sidon and
Byblos – with the interior is evident in the adoption of the Canaanite script 78 by a number of
other nations. The Proto-Canaanite alphabet, which was a Canaanite invention, was appropri-
ated by the Aramaeans from either the Canaanites or Phoenicians. During the early Iron Age
constructive contacts took place between the Phoenicians and the Aramaeans. 79 As the script
developed, it was no longer called Proto-Canaanite, but Phoenician. 80 Although Israel may
have been rooted in the Canaanite continuum, regional characteristics indicate that the alpha-
bet was borrowed from the Phoenicians and adapted to suit national interests. Mid-ninth cen-
tury BC inscriptions on the Mesha Stele 81 of Moab signify that the alphabet was also adapted
by Judah, and then acquired in Moab, at which stage there were already features which sepa-
rated it from its Phoenician origins. Eclectic dedications in ninth century BC Phoenician in-
scriptions at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud 82 suggest that these might have been left by Tyrian merchants.83
Moab and Edom thus received the alphabet from Judah, with whom they had much in com-
mon. The Philistines got it from Judah and from a Phoenician centre – possibly Tyre; they
had economic and cultural links with both these groups.84 It is thus evident that the alphabeti-
cal script – developed by the Canaanites and later known as Phoenician – appeared wide-
spread in the western regions of the Ancient Near East, indicating interaction among various
nations in the Ancient Near East.
According to documents from Ugarit, the city had regular contact with Phoenician Tyre, Si-
don and Byblos, as well as with other Canaanite coastal cities. These documents, together
with later epigraphic material, demonstrate the network of relations that existed among the
ports, harbours and cities along the Canaanite coast.85 Regarding Ancient Near Eastern trade,
'the most perfect models for world trade in general are already found in the Old Assyrian trade
colonies in Anatolia … , the Hyksos in Egypt … , the Phoenicians … and the overseas Greek
colonies … .'86 Long-distance trade was dependent upon individuals and groups who went
abroad to take up residence with the objective to "do business". This type of trade necessitat-
ed people to go to other countries and become foreigners. These people, who took up resi-
dence elsewhere, survived for generations by virtue of maintaining their language, ethnic
78
See § 2.8 and § 2.13, subtitle "Lachish ewer", for brief discussions of the Canaanite alphabetical script.
79
Peckham 2001:19-20, 22, 33.
80
Naveh 1987:101-102.
81
82
83
Peckham 2001:22-23.
84
Peckham 2001:36.
85
Peckham 2001:24.
86
Holladay 2001:141.
486
identity and religion. At times two or more ethnic groups would mix, giving rise to a new di-
aspora; the recognition of social structures in the archaeological records points to long-
distance trading diasporas. Hittites exploited ports and overland trade routes that linked Ana-
tolia with the Levant, as well as trade routes along the Euphrates River crossing into the
Transjordan. Egyptian trading capitalised on regions of the southern Levant, as well as the
highlands. An Arabian trade diaspora connected Amorites in the most southern Levantine
coastal regions with, inter alia, South Arabia and India. Long-distance trade also involved
early "Israelite" settlers who were present in northern Syria, regions of the Euphrates and the
southern Shephelah. 87 Research on a large number of cuneiform tablets point to Old Assyrian
trade with Anatolia. 88 Holladay, 89 nonetheless, indicates that it has 'proven dangerous to at-
tempt the reconstruction of ancient social and economic history on the basis of court docu-
ments'.
Salt, as an essential mineral, was obtained in the Levant along the Mediterranean coast and
along the shores of the Dead Sea. Its use by agriculturalists is known from the time of the
Early Bronze Age. It was furthermore valued as food flavouring, was a necessary ingredient
in sacrifices, was part of the ritual in the signing of an agreement, therapeutic qualities were
ascribed to salt, and it was applied in the treatment of animal hides and the preservation of
fish and certain meats.90 Salt was therefore an important commodity for trading purposes.
Likewise, iron and copper ores, or manufactured articles, were employed in the trading busi-
ness. Experimentation in metallurgy started at a very early date in the Ancient Near East. As
none of the ores was locally available in Mesopotamia, it would have been obtained through
trade. Mines and mining areas from antiquity were discovered in eastern Anatolia, which was
known for its rich iron ores. Trade routes developed and gateway cities progressed along the-
se routes.91 Tyre was well known for its production of the highly valued purple marine dye.
The colour was extracted from salt-water molluscs, such as the Murex brandaris, which was
common at Tyre. This deep blue violet dye was colourfast and enabled the washing of gar-
ments. Due to its exceptional commercial value the dye was greatly in demand, also in the
sense of tributes.92 Tyre was on the Mediterranean coast, as was the Late Bronze Age city of
87
For a description of the Shephelah, see "Shephelah", incorporated in a footnote in § 2.13, subtitle "Lachish
ewer".
88
Holladay 2001:141, 143, 183.
89
Holladay 2001:181.
90
Negev & Gibson 2001:446-447.
91
Kelly-Buccellati 1990:117-118, 126. See also discussions in § 5.1, § 5.2 and § 6.2.2 regarding the importance
of metallurgists; their contact with various tribes over a large area afforded them the opportunity to spread, inter
alia, their religious beliefs.
92
Danker 1992:557-558.
487
Ugarit, which was built in close proximity to a small harbour; 93 this afforded the city easy ac-
cess to imported and luxury goods.94
Even though Palestine did not have good natural harbours at its disposal, it played an im-
portant role in international trade. Its trade routes 'were always thronged with merchants from
all parts of the world'. 95 Tolls collected from trade routes were important for the country's
economy. During the biblical period, grain, oil and wine were the main exports from Pales-
tine. Tyre bought these products from Palestine and resold it in the Mediterranean ports. Is-
raelites engaged in large-scale international trade only from the time of Solomon.96 A signifi-
cant development during the Early Bronze Age is the dramatic increase in commerce. Urban
growth in Palestine coincided with increased trade-prospering cities, such as Ugarit, Ebla,
Hamath and Byblos.97 Cuneiform records attest to important crossroads at the biblical city of
Haran. The site is connected to the modern place name Harran, close to the Balih River.
Scholars mainly agree that this site corresponds with the "Haran" in the patriarchal narrative
of Abraham. It is generally accepted that the Balih region could be linked to Abraham and his
family. Likewise, a number of toponyms in the Balih River and Harran regions could be con-
nected to personal and geographical names in the Abraham narrative in Genesis 11. 98
The Philistines – or Sea Peoples99 – entered Palestine from outside the Levant.100 Their origi-
nal language may point to an Indo-European origin, particularly from the Aegean or Anatolia
– or from both. The Philistines were – according to biblical texts – an urban society,101 nor-
mally depicted as acting together.102 They monopolised the smiths103 – particularly to prevent
the Israelites from building up a supply of weapons. There was evidently a Philistine centre
for metallurgy104 either in the Jordan Valley or on the Mediterranean coastal heartland. 105 The
question is, however, how the presence of Sea Peoples in the Jordan Valley, or elsewhere in
the Levant, could be detected. The interpretation of any possible relevant artefacts is
93
Curtis 1985:18.
94
Caubet 2000:35-36.
95
96
Negev & Gibson 2001:512-513.
97
Richard 1987:27, 31.
98
Frayne 2001:224-225, 233.
99
See earlier reference in this paragraph to a footnote in § 2.7.
100
Levant: see footnote in § 4.3.8.
101
See, for example, 1 Samuel 27:1-2, 5.
102
1 Samuel 5:8; 29.
103
1 Samuel 13:19-22.
104
The reference in 1 Samuel 13:20 that 'the Israelites went down to the Philistines' is interpreted as a reference
to a Philistine centre of metallurgy (Machinist 2000:58).
105
Machinist 2000:57-58, 63.
488
ambiguous. One of the fundamental problems of these people is the question of their origin.
Metal artefacts, which should be a reliable indicator of their cultural heritage, could equally
be a luxury import item. The presence of the Philistines in the central Jordan Valley could
very well have been due to the Egyptians needing them there to carry out certain metallurgical
operations. 106 The Egyptians were associated with the mining of copper ore in the Timnah
Valley;107 the Sea Peoples might thus have been employed as expert metalworkers by the
Egyptians.108 It is therefore evident that these people – at best – intermingled with different
nations, and were found in territories other than their traditional coastal regions. According to
Machinist,109 the biblical account of the Philistines' involvement with Israel is incomplete and
sketchily regarding their history and culture. The Hebrew Bible is also apparently ignorant of
Sea Peoples – other than the Philistines – who are identified by Egyptian and other texts.
Zevit 110 indicates that people – such as the Greeks and Romans who dwelt in Egypt – could
live for decades, and even centuries, amongst each other without having any particular insight
into the other surrounding cultures. Although he is of the opinion that a distinguishing line
could be drawn between the Israelite culture and that of the local Canaanites, he does assume
'some admixture of population as well as regular, ongoing cultural contact'.111 Internal migra-
tions among the so-called Israelite tribes did apparently happen. According to genealogical
lists, clans moved from one place to another and in this process realigned with different tribes.
Similarly, tribes could be related through descent or through intermarriage. Modern Arab and
Bedouin groups provide important parallels regarding genealogical traditions. Migrating
groups maintained either their general tribal name, or a name that linked them to a particular
ancestor. Archaeological data imply that – as a rule – those roaming groups, or "Israelites",
clustered together in communities. Clans from the hinterland of Phoenicia migrating south
could have integrated with people migrating west from northern Transjordan, and thereby
probably established certain northern tribes, such as Asher, Naphtali, Zebulon and Issachar.
These latter two migrating groups also would have been bearers of the myths and cults of the
Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture. Small clusters of indigenous people, in all likelihood,
joined large clans. Therefore, some ancestors of the Israelites may have originated in the
north-eastern Canaanite regions where North-West Semitic languages developed.112 The
106
Tubb 2000:181-182.
107
Negev & Gibson 2001:507. See footnote in § 2.14.1 on the Timnah Valley and mining activities.
108
Tubb 2000:191.
109
Machinist 2000:65.
110
Zevit 2001:621-625, 685-686.
111
Zevit 2001:116.
112
Zevit 2001:621-625, 685-686.
489
process of change was complex and relatively slow, involving considerable assimilation, and
entailing the overlapping of roots of both Israelite and Canaanite societies. 113
'A genealogy expresses the perception of social relationships of the society creating it.' 114 It
is, however, difficult to support a thesis that genealogy demonstrates the "degree of closeness"
that existed between the Israelites and their neighbours. 115 The concept among scholars re-
garding nomadism and its role in Ancient Near Eastern civilisations has developed dramati-
cally the past two or three decades. Scholars now recognise the value of anthropological and
sociological data in the field of biblical scholarship. Nomads were previously perceived to be
primarily responsible for the downfall of different states and cultures, and the originators of
distinct cultures that followed these collapses. Tribal or ethnic groups were complex organi-
sations that were composed of nomadic and sedentary elements. An ethnic label – such as
Amorite – did not in any way describe the background or lifestyle of the member; they moved
between sedentary and nomadic habits. There were complex interactions between pastoral
nomads and the peasant and urban sedentary groups that surrounded them. The Amorites –
for example – were made up of pastoralist, peasant and urban elements, which had existed for
centuries alongside each other. Although there is evidence for population movements in the
Ancient Near East, there is no clear archaeological or historical confirmation for alleged mas-
sive migrations of the Aramaeans and Amorites from their homelands. 116 Close contact be-
tween pastoralists and villagers 'provided for the mutual benefit of trading pastoral goods for
agricultural necessities'.117
Scholars explain the cultural dependence of the Israelite tribes on the Canaanites, by theoris-
ing that close connections existed between these two groups before the twelfth century BC.
'This type of symbiosis is characteristic of the so-called culture-land nomads', 118 who stayed
for long periods on the plains around the cultivated lands in search of pastures. During these
periods they developed close contacts with the towns. Mari texts provide abundant documen-
tary evidence for the existence of culture-land nomads during the second millennium BC. 119
An economic interdependence eventually leads to a political symbiosis. It thus seems that the
113
Dever 1997a:26.
114
Kunin 1995:199.
115
Kunin 1995:201.
116
Pitard 1996:293, 295-297, 301.
117
Pitard 1996:304.
118
Fritz 1987:98.
119
Fritz 1987:98.
490
Israelites did not necessarily have their own differentiated identity, but that it was moulded by
a dynamic historical process.120
7.3 Influence of co-regional Ancient Near Eastern nations

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Israelites lived in a kind of symbiosis with the
Canaanites and Sea Peoples. During the Early Iron Age there was a profuse establishment of
small settlements in the highlands. The identity of the settlers and the place of their origin are
still debated. Some of these newcomers were probably Israelites, while others later became
Israelites. They came from diverse backgrounds – agricultural and nomadic – and from great
distances, or from regions close by. Palestinian highland cultures of the Early Iron Age were
therefore considerably more diverse than what the material artefacts intimate. 121 It is thus rea-
sonable to assume that these different peoples had a significant influence on the later Israelite
nation, particularly regarding their cultural "wares", religion and traditions – as later compiled
in the Masoretic Text. Aspects concerning the influence of the Ancient Near Eastern nations
– particularly of the Canaanites – on the religion of the later Israelite nation are discussed in
Chapter 3. Myths and legends of the various surrounding societies that could be identified in
the Masoretic Text, are also discussed – albeit briefly – in paragraph 3.9. A number of these
influences – or possible influences - are viewed cursorily hereafter, to give an indication of
the impact neighbouring peoples could have had on the forging of an identity of an emerging
nation. Similarly, parallels could be found amongst various other Ancient Near Eastern na-
tions concerning their traditions, and particularly regarding cognate deities that appear in dif-
ferent pantheons. In this latter instance, see deliberations in paragraphs 3.2-3.7.
Different Ancient Near Eastern chronicles that are parallel to biblical narratives of the prime-
val history – as recorded in Genesis 1-11 – and a few other traditions have been deliberated
in paragraph 3.9, as pointed out above. The inner consistency, coherence and literary design
of Genesis 2-11 indicate that it is not mere collections of traditions, but the integrated work of
an author. According to Wittenberg, 122 the majority of the narratives found in these chapters
are indebted to Babylonian traditions. A number of Babylonian texts are also found in Ugarit-
ic material. Peculiarities in the primeval history in Genesis 'seem to contradict the claim that
the author of these chapters was an official of the court in Jerusalem'. 123 On the one hand, re-
lationships – particularly within clans and tribal communities – are significant and form the
120
Le Roux, M 1994:323, 326.
121
Gibson 2001:126-127.
122
123
491
rural community perspective from which the narrator has structured his work. On the other
hand, descendants of Cain are portrayed as prominent city craftsmen within a city culture
dominated by kingship. The author of Genesis 2-11 was obviously well versed in the pro-
nounced tradition of the Ancient Near East. The educated leading men of Judah thus presum-
ably shared in this tradition, but not in the royal urban imperial values. The author of the pri-
meval history in Genesis notably made use of Ancient Near Eastern traditions, and thereby
also related the story of humankind in its entirety. 124 The general content and function of the
primeval history in Genesis 'is very similar to the content and function of myth in the ancient
Near East'.125
Traditions concerning El – head of the Canaanite pantheon – can be detected in the Masoretic
Text. The words qersū, qersum – which appear in an Akkadian text from the Mari archives –
refers to a large tent structure.126 The same words occur in the description of El's mountain
sanctuary in the Ugaritic Ba‛al myths. The Mountain of God might be a parallel to the Moun-
tain of El. The word hurpatum for the Mari tent resembles the Akkadian word urpatu for
"cloud" or "covering". The biblical Tabernacle construction could be related to the original
Syro-Palestinian tents. Scholars contend that the description of the Tabernacle in Exodus was
inspired by memory of the Jerusalem Temple. The Mari tent shrine, as well as the association
of the clouds with the tent-covering,127 most probably also had an influence on the depiction
of the Tabernacle. A late eighth century BC inscription was discovered in the ruins of a tem-
ple at Deir ‛Alla 128 in Transjordan. There is a striking similarity in form and content of the
text of this inscription and the words in Numbers 24:4, 16, when the seer Balaam, son of Be-
or, "hears the words of El, and sees the vision of Shadday". Although the inhabitants of the
site have been identified as Aramaeans, Lutzky129 maintains that the possibility of an Israelite
temple cannot be excluded. She proposes that, if this was 'an El temple – as it appears to be –
Yahwism may have coexisted at that time with a non-Yahwistic Israelite El cult'.
124
Wittenberg 1995:440, 442, 444-445, 449, 452-453.
125
Kruger 2001a:50.
126
See description in a footnote in § 2.14.1.
127
Fleming 2000:486-487, 491-493, 496-497.
128
Tell Deir ‛Alla is one of the most prominent mounds in the Jordan Valley. It is situated at the junction of the
Jabbok and Jordan rivers. Many scholars identify this site with biblical Succoth (see footnote in § 2.7). On ac-
count of particular ceramics – typical of the eighth to seventh century BC – the inhabitants of the site during that
period have been identified as Aramaeans. The most significant discovery is the Aramaic inscription mentioning
a non-Israelite prophet, Balaam (Negev & Gibson 2001:138).
129
Lutzky 1998:26.
492
It is most likely that all Ancient Near Eastern peoples engaged in some form of divination.
The will of the gods was determined by observing nature. It was not a magical practice, but a
procedure based upon empirical observation. Mesopotamians considered omens to be more
reliable than direct forms of divine communication. An example was found in the library of
King Zimri-Lim130 of Mari. According to the Hebrew Bible, lot casting – cleromancy – was
among the few divination procedures allowed in Israel. It was the prime function of the high
priest.131 There is no clarity on what the Urim and Thummim 132 – which were used to ascer-
tain the will of God in relation to particular problems – looked like. It seems that they were
small objects, perhaps made of precious stones and metals, in the shape of dice. 133 Consistent
with the Hebrew Bible, certain signs – interpreted as divine communication – as well as the
interpretation of dreams, were allowed. Other forms of divination 134 were strictly forbidden.
The Israelite society, however, preferred divine communication through an ecstatic medium.
This phenomenon has been positively attested also in Canaan, Phoenicia and the western re-
gions of Mesopotamia.135 An inscription discovered at Karatepe136 contains literary formulas
and titles similar to those found in the Hebrew Bible, particularly regarding curses and bless-
ings. 137
Fisher 138 identifies the final form of the book of Genesis as being divided into "histories".
The histories follow a sequential pattern. He compares the Epic of Keret 139 in the Ugaritic
130
131
Negev & Gibson 2001:142-143. Numbers 27:21.
132
Urim and Thummim: according to Leviticus 8:5-8 the Urim and Thummim were placed in the breastpiece of
the high priest. The breastpiece was attached to the ephod (incorporated in a footnote on the "number twelve" in
§ 3.6); in some instances the "ephod" was used as a synonym for the Urim and Thummim. There is no indica-
tion of the type of material it was made of, or of any signs or symbols impressed on it. The breastpiece was a
small, square, multicoloured pocket made of twined linen. The exact meaning of the words is also not known
(Mendelsohn 1962:739-740).
133
Mendelsohn 1962:739-740.
134
Such as, the examination of the entrails of animals, astrology, necromancy (consulting the dead) and hydro-
mancy (interpretation of water patterns) (Negev & Gibson 2001:143).
135
136
An eight century BC inscription was discovered at Karatepe in Turkey; this is the longest Phoenician inscrip-
tion found to date. Three copies of the text are preserved; two on city gates and one on a statue of Ba‛al. Bilin-
gual copies of the text in hieroglyphic Luwian on the gates were also recovered. The text contains a first-person
account of Azatiwada, who may have been a king or prince in Cilicia in south-eastern Turkey (Arnold & Beyer
2002:162). By the ninth century BC the Phoenicians – as result of their maritime initiatives – had colonies in
Karetepe (in modern Turkey), Sardinia and Cyprus (Bimson et al 1985:88). A large number of pieces of Phoeni-
cian literature existed at one time, for example, Philo of Byblos (see footnote on Melqart in § 3.5) translated
Sanchuniathon's history of Phoenicia into Greek (see same footnote in § 3.5 as above). Of the literary traditions,
only quotations by later authors are extant. Rare historical texts – as the inscription at Karatepe – are presently
known (Ward 1994:198).
137
138
Fisher 1973:61-65.
139
Keret was the son of the supreme Canaanite god El and a soldier of the goddess Sapas. Keret, as king of Si-
don, was ordered by El to resist an invasion by the moon god, Terah (or Etrah). Keret disobeyed El's orders and
shut himself up in his chamber. He dreamt that he would be the father of a son. He thus decided to depart on the
493
texts with the Jacob material in Genesis. There are numerous similarities in structure, content
and intention.140 Scholars indicate that there is no clarity whether yba dba ymra,141 –
Deuteronomy 26:5 – should be translated as 'a wandering Aramaen was my father', 142 or, pos-
sibly, "my father was an Aramaean, a fugitive", 143 or perchance even another interpretation.
The explanation thus remains inconclusive. According to tradition, famine in Canaan drove
Jacob to Egypt in search of pasturage. This crisis was not unique among Israel's ancestors but
presents a recurring theme: drought and famine in the land and barrenness that afflicts each
ancestor. Regarding Deuteronomy 26:5, "Aramaean" may be a word that connotes a wander-
ing style of life. The word dba could categorise a particular type of wanderer. 144 The re-
sponsibilities of a sheep owner and a shepherd to one another are illuminated in an Old Baby-
lonian shepherding contract. A parallel to this contract is found in the Hebrew Bible in the
agreement between Jacob and Laban.145
According to information on tablets discovered in the royal archives at Ebla, Ebrum – Eb-uru-
um – was one of the kings at Ebla. This name resembles Eber, the father of the Semites.146
The name ~rba – abīrām – is attested in an Amorite seal inscription, and on an Amorite tab-
let the name a-hi-la-ba-an – my brother is Laban – appears.147 The Sumerian King List,
which preserves the names of hundred and fifty early kings of southern Mesopotamia, indi-
cates that the rulers of the antediluvian period had extraordinarily long lives. This section of
the list has been compared to the long-lived biblical ancestors of Genesis 5. 148 Zevit 149 is of
the opinion that, apart from being an 'intellectual heir of a historiographic tradition', the deu-
teronomic historian was probably also a 'beneficiary of more direct cross-cultural stimulation
by Mesopotamian writers'.
Identifying comparable evidence – regarding family religion – at various sites, indicates that
the pattern of domestic and official cult rituals in Iron Age Israel and Judah was not unique, as
campaign and brought a sacrifice. The battle took place in the Negeb. When he returned to Sidon he bought a
wife and she bore him a beautiful son. This son was a prodigy demanding justice for the widow, protection for
the orphan and assistance against the plunderer. For a detailed description of the epic, see Guirand (1996:79).
140
For a comparison of the Keret and Jacob material, see Fisher (1973:62-63).
141
’ărammî ’ōbēd ’ābî (Janzen 1994:359).
142
English Standard Version.
143
Holladay 1971:1.
144
Janzen 1994:359-360, 372.
145
Arnold & Beyer 2002:73. Genesis 31:38-40.
146
Genesis 10:21 (Pettinato 1976:47). See also footnote in § 2.3.
147
Knudsen 1999:217-218.
148
Arnold & Beyer 2002:150. See also footnote in § 3.9 on the Sumerian King List.
149
Zevit 2001:445.
494
corresponding customs were widespread amongst neighbouring peoples. 150 Syria and Pales-
tine were exposed to a complex of external influences, but the extent thereof on their beliefs
and practices can hardly be determined with certainty. The Temple of Jerusalem – for in-
stance – has analogies, regarding construction, contents and ritual in other neighbouring tem-
ples, including some in South Arabia, Crete and Cyprus. 151 As early as the end of the nine-
teenth century it was already apparent that similarities existed between monuments of ancient
Mesopotamia and those referred to in the Hebrew Bible, and that the origin, society and reli-
gion of the ancient Israelites were not necessarily different from those of their neighbours. 152
Keel153 agrees that the concept of the cosmic system and the institutions of temple and king-
ship, as well as numerous cultic practices, were borrowed by the Israelites from their neigh-
bours. Ancient Near Eastern iconography of temple, king and cultus corresponds remarkably
to statements in the Book of Psalms. Mettinger 154 mentions that, although not all cults in an-
cient Israel were aniconic, 155 there was notably 'a tradition of aniconic worship of YHWH
with deep roots in earlier West Semitic cults'. Aniconism – as a shared feature of West Semit-
ic cults – is demonstrated by the discovery of various aniconic stelae. Israelite aniconism is
therefore not the consequence of theological reflection, but should be identified as an "inherit-
ed convention". 156
Uffenheimer157 indicates that 'prophecy was not an alien Canaanite-Dionysian phenomenon

imposed upon the original Israelite culture', nor should the influence of West Semitic prophe-
cy of Mari158 be overemphasised. He is of the opinion that prophecy grew from the popular
religion as reflected in the Book of Psalms, the Torah and Wisdom literatures. He, nonethe-
less, denotes that a close kinship exists between several psalms and Akkadian literature. Sim-
ilarly, there is a striking resemblance between Psalm 29 and Canaanite literature from Ugarit,
and particularly between Psalm 104 and the Hymn of Akhenaten159 – dedicated to the sun – in
Egyptian literature. The Book of Psalms adopted many stylistic traits from
150
Daviau 2001:200.
151
Bury et al 1925:426-427.
152
Sweek 1995:404.
153
Keel 1978:178.
154
Mettinger 1997:228.
155
See footnote in § 1.2 for a description of "aniconism".
156
Mettinger 1997:228-229.
157
Uffenheimer 1987:7.
158
See brief discussion in § 2.4.
159
See Excursus 4 in § 8.8.1.
495
Canaan.160 Cassuto161 mentions that monsters, bearing the same names as those which occur
in Canaanite poetry, appear in Isaiah 27:1. 162
Cross-cultural parallels could signify that a direct or indirect relationship existed between in-
stitutions of different societies. David, for example, was dependent on Canaanite expertise to
establish his kingdom. A later large increase in the rate of population growth virtually de-
manded an improvement in administrative control systems. Prior to the ninth century BC no
actual structure of professional scribes or administrators existed. Following the later govern-
mental need, professional administrators were systematically trained in an established neigh-
bouring training centre.163 The deification of a king was a belief prevalent in the Ancient
Near East. Both kings David and Solomon were identified with the divine realm. They both
had the ability to distinguish between good and evil. 164
Some other influences on Israelite customs and the Masoretic Text are, for example, Lamech's
revenge was seventy-sevenfold;165 the number, or symbol, seventy-seven was a popular ele-
ment in Ugaritic poetic texts.166 The names and order of the Semitic alphabetical signs accede
with a blend of Egyptian and Mesopotamian motifs that have been found on Syrian and Pales-
tinian seals. 167 The old Hebrew alphabet, however, 'may have developed without Phoenician
mediation directly from proto-Canaanite'.168 Metallurgy which, according to my theory, had a
meaningful role in the spreading of the Yahwistic faith,169 is well known in myths of Greece,
Rome and Sumer. The beginnings thereof, throughout the world, are regarded 'as of the ut-
most importance in the history of humankind'. 170
7.4 Proto-Israelites, exodus and settlement in Palestine

The question of the origin of the Israelite nation – who they were and where they came from –
the historicity or not of the exodus, and the manner of settlement or establishment of the Isra-
elite tribes in Palestine, has been debated intermittently by scholars for many decades. There
160
Uffenheimer 1987:7, 15-16.
161
Cassuto 1961:50.
162
Isaiah 27:1 mentions the Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, the twisting serpent and the dragon that is in the sea.
163
Jamieson-Drake 1991:24, 77, 79.
164
Kruger 2001a:66-67. 2 Samuel 14:17; 1 Kings 3:9.
165
Genesis 4:24.
166
Van Selms 1967:88.
167
168
Fritz 1987:97.
169
Marginal groups in southern Palestine – such as the Kenites and Rechabites – practised metallurgy; they
moved around to different regions where they sold their wares and practised their skills.
170
496
have been profuse suggestions and there are several hypotheses on these subjects, but, as yet,
consensus has not been reached. This is a vast field of debate, with innumerable publications
that have seen the light. It is, therefore, impossible to deliberate on these issues extensively in
this thesis. Consequently, relevant matters pertaining to the emergence and settlement of the
Israelites are forthwith discussed cursorily, but with the aim to give sufficient information on
past and present debates, thereby to provide the reader with an overview – or outline – of this
enigmatic nation.
Reconstructing the past has been compared with private investigation, psychoanalysis, and
even with branches of the natural sciences. History, which is a form of investigation and re-
construction, as well as representing human events, is a "distinctive enterprise". The authors
of the recognisable, so-called "historical" narratives in the Hebrew Bible, obviously had 'au-
thentic antiquarian intentions' and meant to 'furnish fair and accurate representations of Israel-
ite antiquity'. 171 Margalith172 refers to five places where the name "Israel" appears in antiqui-
ty, namely a fourteenth or thirteenth century BC tablet from Ugarit, the Merneptah [Meren-
ptah] inscription dated ca 1220 BC [ca 1207 BC], an inscription of Shalmanesar III dated 853
BC, the Mesha-inscription dated ca 840 BC and in the Hebrew Bible. 173 As discussed in par-
agraph 2.7, there is no clarity whether the name "Israel" in the inscription on the Merenptah
Stele refers to a tribe, or any other body of that name. It is also possible that it was one of the
place names where the pharaoh's supremacy was acknowledged.
Scholars speculate whether the Ugaritic spelling Išrael – and not Israel – is the original, and
therefore correct one. Since the Masoretic Text was initially written without phonological
marks, it is impossible to deduce whether the X – in the different inscriptions – was a sin or
šin.174 It does, however, appear 'that the Ugaritic form represents the closest and most faithful
rendering of the pronunciation prevalent at the time in the area', 175 thus implying that Išrael
was the correct way to pronounce the name. The incident described in Judges 12:6 176 indi-
cates that both the sin and šin were used by the Israelites in ancient times; the dialects of the
North and South possibly differed. 177
171
Halpern 1988:3.
172
Margalith 1990:225.
173
See § 2.7 regarding the Merenptah inscription, and § 4.3.8 for a discussion of the Mesha inscription. For fur-
ther deliberations on the different inscriptions, see Margalith (1990:226-230).
174
Thus, whether the Hebrew pronunciation would have been larfy or larvy.
175
Margalith 1990:228.
176
Judges 12:6, 'they said to him, "Then say Shibboleth", and he said "Sibboleth", for he could not pronounce it
right … .'
177
Margalith 1990:226, 228-231.
497
Excavations, as well as archaeological surveys of the central highlands, Judean hills, Negeb
and Galilee identified hamlets, villages and several hundred farmsteads. These obviously rep-
resented self-sufficient small-scale farmers and herders in relatively unoccupied areas. The
term "Galilee"178 in the Hebrew Bible, evidently refers to the region north of the hills of Ma-
nasseh. Although no biblical distinction is made, scholars differentiate between Upper and
Lower Galilee. Early and epic clashes between Israelites and Canaanites in the Galilee and
Jezreel Valley179 are recounted in the Hebrew Bible. 180 Archaeological data suggest a cultural
break between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Historical evidence refers to agents –
such as the Canaanite city-states and Egypt – active in this region during the fourteenth to
twelfth centuries BC. Events mentioned in the Amarna Letters 181 presumably relate to the
early history of the Galilean tribes, particularly with regard to activities associated with the
habiru (or ‛apiru).182 Iron I sites in the Galilee were clustered in ways that reveal Late
Bronze Age regionalism, dominated by the city-states of Akko, Tyre and Hazor. Inhabitants
of some southern villages in the Lower Galilee – which had been occupied for many genera-
tions – were skilled at raising the best crops and livestock, thereby being successful to gener-
ate marketable surpluses. 183
According to the Hebrew Bible, a large part of the Galilee was in Israelite hands from early
days. However, one should question the probability that any of these groups living in the Gal-
ilee could be described as "Israelite". 'Shared cultural heritage presumes a sense of common
ancestry and a commitment to a common religious heritage.'184 It is difficult to identify an
Israelite in the Iron Age I. The geographic isolation of the people living in Iron I Galilee,
buffered them from events in the mountains to the south. The biblical depiction of the con-
quest of Canaan by unified "Israelite" tribes is unsubstantiated, but this theme was obviously
178
The Galilee is identified as the northernmost region of the land of Israel, close to the coastal cultures of Ca-
naan/Phoenicia, and the Syrian-Aramaean cultures to the east and north-east. Cultural and political borders be-
tween these groups fluctuated. Jerusalem, where the seat was of the Judean palace, temple, archives and scribes,
was geographically distant from Galilee, with the result that events which occurred in Galilee, are rarely men-
tioned in the Hebrew Bible, thereby complicating a reconstruction of its history. The incidents portrayed in Ex-
odus, and the books of Joshua and Judges are associated with the transition from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age.
Excavated Early Iron Age sites in the Galilee exhibit a variation in character – from huts and tents to well-built
square buildings (Frankel 1992:879, 883-884).
179
Scholars assume that the Jezreel Valley stretched west from Jezreel to the plain of Acco (Akko) (see footnote
in § 7.2), incorporating the Valley of Beth-shan. The Jezreel Valley was a vital strategic link on the route be-
tween Damascus and Egypt. The valley is fertile and that feature possibly inspired its name which could be
translated as "God sows" (Hunt 1992:850).
180
Nakhai 2003:131, 134.
181
See § 2.5 for information on the Amarna Letters.
182
Frankel 1992:884. See discussions on the habiru in § 2.4, § 2.5, § 2.6, § 4.3.3 and § 4.3.7.
183
Nakhai 2003:136, 139.
184
Nakhai 2003:140.
498
employed by biblical authors in order to legitimate the territorial acquisition in the time of the
Monarchy. 185
Dever186 denotes that recent models of "indigenous Israelite origins" should be submitted to
more complex and sophisticated analyses than those previously undertaken. In order to eval-
uate local changes more precisely, Palestine should be placed in the context of the large up-
heavals in the Levant at the end of the Bronze Age. Considering archaeological data, it seems
that a new ethnic identity did exist on the Canaanite highland frontier in the twelfth century
BC, which could be presumed "Proto-Israelites". According to Dever, 187 archaeological evi-
dence suggests that the Proto-Israelites – the ancestors of later Israel – emanated to a great
extent from a Canaanite background. They could thus best be understood 'as an agrarian so-
cio-economic movement – perhaps accompanied by certain visionary notions of reform'.188
He furthermore mentions that, although the term "Proto-Israelite" is generally applied for the
pre-monarchical period, there is no certainty that 'the "Israel" of the Iron I period really is the
precursor of the full-fledged later Israel'.189 If the material culture of a people 'exhibits a tra-
dition of continuous, non-broken development, then it is reasonable to argue that the core
population remains the same'. 190 He, therefore, suggests that the designations "Early Israel"
and "Later Israel" could be employed with confidence. 191
The patriarchal narratives portray the beginning of the formation of a new structure; the
emerging community was identified by the names of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Ja-
cob.192 The figures of the patriarchs notably 'serve as personifications of the tribes of which
they are the eponyms'. 193 According to Sasson,194 in 'the quest for the historical Abraham …
Mari195 is there to deliver the necessary clues'. The antiquity and the wealth of material from
Mari is an indication of a special link between Mari and the Hebrew Bible. Administrative
texts testify to a broad network of political connections that existed amongst various cities in
the Ancient Near East. By the mid-twentieth century scholars suggested that Mari legitimised
Hebrew traditions; Israelite descendants of Abraham probably passed by Mari on their travels.
185
Nakhai 2003:140, 142.
186
Dever 1993:22, 24.
187
Dever 1993:25, 31.
188
Dever 1993:25.
189
Dever 1997a:44.
190
Dever 1997a:44.
191
Dever 1997a:44.
192
Janzen 1979:231.
193
Ramsey 1981:67.
194
Sasson 2006:198.
195
See § 2.4 and § 4.3.3 for information on Mari.
499
The phrasing and structure in the speech of Mari vassals and ambassadors compare well with
what we find in biblical chronicles. 'Mari letters and biblical narratives shared the same sen-
sibilities, [for example], outrage at the abuse of hospitality'; 196 likewise, the same place names
appear in the Hebrew Bible and Mari texts.197
Interpretation of archaeological data and extra-biblical literature – such as the Late Bronze
Age Amarna Letters198 from Palestine, and some Egyptian texts – as well as the exegesis of
biblical texts, all suggest that the early Israelites consisted of a variance of population groups.
Some of these were probably habiru199 who became Israelites for ideological reasons. 200 Dur-
ing most of the second millennium BC the name habiru appears in texts throughout the An-
cient Near East. They were an active component of the Ancient Near Eastern society, but
stood outside the established social order. They had no legal status, property or roots. Ac-
cording to the Amarna Letters, they were primarily involved in military activity. 201 Ram-
sey202 describes them as 'uprooted individuals of varied origins, without tribal or family ties,
who joined in bands which could be hired as soldiers by organized states, or acted on their
own'. Some scholars have identified late thirteenth century BC biblical Hebrews with the
habiru; the origins of Israel could thus possibly be traced to such movements. 203
The etymology of the word habiru – or ‛apiru – has never been explained fully. If the correct
reading of ‛br or ‛pr is habiru, the obvious etymological explanation would be, "to pass by",
"to trespass". If the reading is ‛apiru, this might have been an accepted way of designating
people of low social standing. There are numerous occurrences of the word in Ancient Near
Eastern documents. It seems that the habiru – as a social and political force – disappeared
just before the end of the second millennium BC. There are indications that these people
were employed as mercenaries during the Old Babylonian Period. 204 Archival reports from
the royal palace of Mari refer to the habiru as outlaws.205 The habiru are also mentioned in
administrative documents from Alalakh, 206 listing persons of foreign origin. It seems that
they were Amorite-speaking inhabitants of the Ancient Near East, or of West Semitic descent.
196
Sasson 2006:197.
197
Sasson 2006:189-190, 193, 195, 197.
198
See § 2.5 on the Amarna Letters.
199
See an earlier footnote in this paragraph for references to the habiru, in different paragraphs.
200
Dever 1997a:40.
201
Newman 1985:171.
202
Ramsey 1981:90.
203
Ramsey 1981:90.
204
Old Babylonian Period is dated 2000-1595 BC (Arnold 1994:47).
205
See § 2.4.
206
See several footnotes in § 4.3.7.
500
However, different ethnic groups from any society could be identified as habiru. The wave of
fugitives seems to have increased during the Late Bronze Age; they probably left their own
countries to find ways of survival elsewhere. The numerous small states and uncontrollable
territories and territorial borders were suitable for the lives of brigands. These territories were
normally found in the steppes between the desert and cultivated areas, as well as in the moun-
tains. There is no reference to the activities of the habiru after 1000 BC.207
The deed of Rahab, as explained in Joshua 2, clearly indicates that she and her clan were not
part of the royal establishment. She – in a sense – rejected the existing social and political
order and responded to the ideology of the invaders – even by acknowledging Yahweh's pow-
er to act in history. 208 Her attitude could very well classify her as a habiru.209 De Moor210 is
of the opinion that the habiru resembled the Shasu211 in many respects, and he is 'doubtful
whether the two terms designated different groups'. It is also possible that there were Proto-
Israelites among the Shasu and habiru. Information gleaned from Egyptian texts links the
Shasu to Edom and Seir in southern Palestine – and thus to those tribes who, according to the
Kenite hypothesis, venerated Yahweh. Ramsey212 disagrees with scholars – such as Menden-
hall – who equate the habiru with the Hebrews, and therefore also with the Israelites, and
finds it untenable to read habiru traits into texts that refer to the Hebrews or Israelites.
Mendenhall, 213 however, defends 'the equation of ‛Apiru and Hebrew on (this) nonethic but
legal and political ground'. He indicates that, had it not been for the identification of the Am-
arna habiru with biblical ‛Ivri – Israel, 'it is inconceivable that the Amarna letters should ever
have been used as materials for the reconstruction of Israelite history'. 214 Scholars assumed
that these letters sketched nomadic invaders attacking Canaanite cities. Biblical traditions
have repeated instances of similar phenomena to that depicted in the Amarna Letters. An ex-
ample is that of David when he fled from Saul. He gathered other refugees around him; all
were without legal protection and maintained themselves by forming a band under the leader-
ship of David. 215 Dever216 denotes that most archaeologists agree that evidence points
207
Lemche 1992:7-9.
208
Joshua 2:9-11.
209
Newman 1985:173.
210
De Moor 1997:117, 120.
211
See § 2.6 and § 4.3.4 for discussions on the Shasu.
212
Ramsey 1981:96.
213
214
215
Mendenhall 1973:122, 135-136.
216
Dever 2003:153, 181, 194.
501
to a population surge in Iron Age I – particularly in the hill country. These settlers were not
foreign invaders, but emerged predominantly from Canaanite society. He depicts the Proto-
Israelites as Iron I hill country colonists, composed of different groups – all dissidents of one
sort or another; the habiru, evidently, would have been among them. Although these high-
landers were – at that stage – not yet citizens of an Israelite state with fixed boundaries,
Dever217 argues 'that these were the ancestors – the authentic and direct progenitors – of those
who later became the biblical Israelites'.
Friedman218 mentions that 'it is a strange fact that we have never known with certainty who
produced the book that has played such a central role in our civilization'. Information con-
cerning the connection between the author's life and the world the author depicts, is largely
lacking in the Hebrew Bible. Variations in detail could be observed in biblical narratives. In
most cases of a doublet the divine name Yahweh occurs in the one version, and the name Elo-
him in the other, thus indicating that two old source documents were woven together to form a
continuous story in the Pentateuch. Biblical stories with variant detail often appear in two
different places in the Hebrew Bible. In the instance of the narratives concerning the birth of
Jacob's sons – each of whom became the ancestor of a tribe – there is usually a reference to
either the Deity Yahweh or the Deity Elohim, as they name the child.219
The biblical chronicle of the Israelites that recounts dramatically how their nation established
themselves in Canaan commences with the exodus from Egypt. This national epic is com-
posed of the Pentateuch220 and the Deuteronomistic History, 221 which were skilfully woven
into a composite work, written and edited by anonymous authors and redactors. As literacy
was not widespread in ancient Israel until the eighth century BC, scholars tend to date the
Pentateuch in the eighth or seventh century BC. The Deuteronomistic History seems to be the
work of a school of Mosaic reformers under Josiah,222 with final additions during the Exile in
the sixth century BC. The question arises as to the historical trustworthiness of these narra-
tives which probably rest on documentary sources – now lost to us – and even older oral
217
Dever 2003:194.
218
Friedman 1987:15.
219
Friedman 1987:22, 63. The name Yahweh is mentioned with the birth of the following sons: Reuben (Gn
29:32), Simeon (Gn 29:33) and Judah (Gn 29:35). The name Elohim is called out at the birth of Dan (Gn 30:4-
6), Issachar (Gn 30:17-18) and Zebulon (Gn 30:19-20). In the case of the birth of Joseph – whose sons Ephraim
and Manasseh (Gn 41:50-52) became tribal chiefs (Jos 16:4) – both names, Yahweh and Elohim are mentioned
(Gn 30:22-24). At the births of Levi (Gn 29:34), Naphtali (Gn 30:7-8), Gad (Gn 30:10-11), Asher (Gn 30:12-13)
and Benjamin (Gn 35:17-18), there is no reference to a deity.
220
See § 8.2.
221
See § 8.3.
222
King of Judah; ca 640-609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
502
traditions. A large part of the exodus is devoted to the crossing of the Sinai Desert. A further
question is thus whether there is any evidence from either textual or archaeological data that
can substantiate the historicity of the Sinai epic. Attempts have been made to explain the dif-
ferent miracles during the exodus as natural phenomena. 223
Davies,224 likewise, poses the question whether there was an exodus at all. He indicates that
such an argument would have been unthinkable a generation ago.225 New theories regarding a
Canaanite origin for the Israelites – based on archaeological data – indicate that it is not pos-
sible that all ancestors of Israel came from both the cities of Canaan and from Egypt. Textual
testimony, however, cannot be ignored; 'the textual evidence purports … to give a different
view from that which archaeologists now tend to favour'. 226 Countless references in the Book
of Exodus, as well as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, support the exodus tradition. The im-
pact of this tradition could be observed in the historical narrative, worship, ritual, prophecy
and law; it has a central place in the pre-exilic period, particularly in documents and traditions
handed down from the Northern Kingdom of Israel. However, some scholars regard the tradi-
tions concerning Israel's sojourn in Egypt and the exodus of these people as "legendary and
epic" in nature.
Thompson227 denotes that scholars have attempted to link the sojourn of the Israelites in
Egypt with the Hyksos of the Fifteenth Dynasty. 228 During this time frame Egypt was ruled
by foreigners, which, accordingly, 'offered a favourable climate for Semitic migration into the
Delta region'.229 Scholars also assume that it is more likely that a non-Egyptian – such as
223
Dever 2003:7-8, 18, 21. See Dever (2003:15-21) for a discussion of the various miracles and possible expla-
nations thereof.
224
Davies 2004:23, 25-27.
225
Davies (2004:23) quotes John Bright (A history of Israel, 1960:110. London: SCM Press), who wrote, inter
alia, 'there can really be little doubt that ancestors of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and had escaped in some
marvellous way'.
226
Davies 2004:25.
227
Thompson 1977:151-153.
228
"Hyksos" is the Greek form of an Egyptian word meaning "ruler(s) of foreign land(s)" (Redford & Weinstein
1992:341). As the Fifteenth Dynasty (1663-1555 BC) they ruled during the Second Intermediate Period; the
latter is dated 1782-1570 BC (Clayton 1994:93). The Hyksos power takeover in Egypt is described as a "de-
structive invasion". An Asiatic assumption of power is supported by evidence that a reasonably large proportion
of the Egyptian population in the Thirteenth Dynasty comprised an Asian immigrant element. The Hyksos rulers
established their capital at Avaris on the east of the Delta. Little is known about the government of the Hyksos.
Seals suggest that they worshipped Ba‛al-type – identified with the Egyptian Seth – and Qudšu-type deities.
Long after their expulsion the Hyksos invasion lived on in written and oral traditions, both in Egypt and the east-
ern Mediterranean. A Canaanite version of the events may have inspired the Hebrew "exodus" legends. Hyksos
material culture is a mixture of Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian features. Data on fortifications in Egypt are min-
imal. Hyksos rulers are known mainly from the appearance of their names on small objects, such as scarabs
(Redford & Weinstein 1992:341, 343-345). See also "Hyksos" in a footnote in § 3.3, and incorporated in a foot-
note in § 4.3.13.
229
Thompson 1977:151.
503
Joseph – could have risen to prominence under the Hyksos rule, rather than under Egyptian
rulers. However, most extra-biblical sources support a later date than the Hyksos Period –
namely, the thirteenth century BC – for a possible sojourn and exodus. Forced labour in
Egypt linked to the capital Pi-Ramesse, 'establishes a nearly certain thirteenth-century date for
the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt'. 230 Ramsey231 considers the possibility that the ex-
odus could be tied in with the departure of the Hyksos from Egypt. 232 Scholars traditionally
dated the exodus during 1440 BC; this date was derived by dating backwards from the date
attributed to the building of the Solomonic Temple – dated ca 960 BC. However, the older
date was challenged and the exodus placed at ca 1290 BC. Based on archaeological and his-
torical evidence most scholars lately support the later date.233 Finegan234 indicates that the
only reference to "Israel" in an Egyptian inscription 235 establishes a probable date for the exo-
dus at 1250 BC. The comment in Exodus 1:8, that 'there arose a new king over Egypt, who
did not know Joseph', could allude to a new dynasty. The Eighteenth Dynasty236 was the first
Egyptian dynasty after the expulsion of the Hyksos. Pi-Ramesse is the great East Delta resi-
dence and capital city built by Ramesses II 237 of the Nineteenth Dynasty; the family of Joseph
was brought to the "land of Goshen", 'the land of Rameses'. 238 It therefore seems that an exo-
dus date during the thirteenth century BC should be considered.
Thompson239 argues that the name "Goshen" is neither Egyptian, nor found in Egyptian texts.
During times of famine Semitic shepherds were allowed to enter Egypt; Israel's entry into
Egypt, thus, might well have happened in this manner. Semites were, from as early as the
third millennium BC, indigenous to Egypt. Although the Egyptians consistently distinguished
themselves from Semitic peoples, West-Semitic loan-words did enter the Egyptian language.
Numerous periods in the Egyptian history could have provided a background for the penta-
teuchal narratives. If the so-called "historical events" behind the Joseph and Moses traditions
had to be reconstructed from extra-biblical evidence concerning analogous occurrences in the
Egyptian and Semitic worlds, an historical migration – parallel to movements recounted in the
230
Thompson 1977:153.
231
Ramsey 1981:75.
232
This argument contradicts proposals by scholars for a later date for the exodus. See discussions in this para-
graph.
233
Drinkard 1998:176-177.
234
Finegan 1998:202-203, 227, 232.
235
The inscription is by Ramesses II's successor, Merenptah. See discussion in § 2.7 of this inscription.
236
Dated 1570-1293 BC (Clayton 1994:100).
237
Ramesses II is dated 1293-1185 BC (Clayton 1994:146). Finegan (1998:232) dates Ramesses II, 1279-1212
BC.
238
Genesis 47:6, 11.
239
Thompson 1977:156-158.
504
biblical narratives – should be suggested. Scholars have, for instance, identified migrations of
Shasu tribes who left the Arabian Peninsula and Edom to enter Egypt.240
Davies241 examined a few elements of the exodus tradition that might provide an historical
core to the chronicle. He draws the conclusion that the historicity of some kind of "exodus
event" could be estimated positively; 'that the tradition is a priori unlikely to have been in-
vented; the biblical evidence is widespread and can be followed back to a respectable antiqui-
ty'.242 Some elements have a "particular claim to authenticity", corresponding closely to the
actualities in Egypt during the period of the New Kingdom. He discusses, inter alia, the
Egyptian cities Pi-Ramesse and Pithom;243 Moses' Midianite connections, which is unlikely to
have been fabricated; the term "Hebrew" as an alternative name for the people mentioned in
Exodus 1-10; the antiquity of the Song of Moses244 and the Song of Miriam;245 numerous ref-
erences in Egyptian New Kingdom246 texts to people called ‛pr(w), probably vocalised as
‛apiru (habiru).247 The oppression of the Israelites in Egypt – as mentioned in Exodus, and
referred to numerous times in the Hebrew Bible – has some general credibility in the way for-
eign prisoners of war were exploited in the New Kingdom Period. The exodus-group might
thus have consisted mainly of prisoners of war. 248 Lemche249 discusses the plausibility that
the storage cities Pithom and Raamses could be considered an historical background to the
Exodus narrative. While the site Pi-Ramesse dates from the late New Kingdom Period, Pi-
thom – as a name of a city – was used only from the seventh century BC onwards. It there-
fore seems that the ancient historians manipulated their sources to create the impression that
the "people of Israel" worked as slaves in Egypt at an early point in their history.
Malamat250 emphasises that, although there might be Egyptian material analogous to the bib-
lical account in Exodus, 'none of the Egyptian sources substantiates the story of the Exodus'.
Scholars therefore face the dilemma that the chronicle, which is mainly of a theological
240
See also discussions in § 2.6 and § 4.3.4.
241
Davies 2004:27,36. See Davies (2004:28-36) for a discussion of some elements that might support the au-
thenticity of an "Egypt" and "exodus" tradition.
242
Davies 2004:36.
243
Compare Exodus 1:11, ' … . They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses'.
244
Exodus 15:1-17.
245
Exodus 15:21.
246
New Kingdom dated 1570-1070 BC (Clayton 1994:99).
247
Egypt was apparently not the place of origin of the ‛apiru; some texts refer to them as being brought to Egypt
as prisoners of war from Palestine. The Egyptian texts generally refer to them as workmen on state projects
(Davies 2004:32).
248
Davies 2004:28-33.
249
Lemche 1994:172-174.
250
Malamat 1997:15.
505
nature, might be 'merely the product of later contemplation'. 251 However, the absence of any
direct extra-biblical evidence does not necessarily negate any of the biblical accounts, but
could be simply an indication that neither the exodus, nor the conquest, shook 'the foundations
of the political and military scene of the day'. 252 A number of indirect sources, which could
be regarded as circumstantial evidence, could afford greater authority to the biblical chroni-
cle. 253 Some of these sources, for instance, refer to ‛apiru (habiru) who had to transport
stones for construction work commissioned by Ramesses II.254 Furthermore, a stele from El-
ephantine of Pharaoh Sethnakht reflects the final years of the Nineteenth Dynasty and the first
two years of Sethnakht.255 During that time Asiatics were bribed with silver, gold and copper
by a faction of the Egyptians who revolted against Sethnakht and those loyal to him. The
Asiatics were, however, driven out of Egypt and a type of exodus, which led them to southern
Palestine, were forced upon them. 256 Passages in the Book of Exodus refer to precious metals
appropriated by the Israelites from the Egyptians, 257 and a statement by the pharaoh that the
Israelites might join his enemies. 258
Archaeological research in Egypt and Palestine has not revealed anything that can be directly
linked to the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt or a large-scale migration by them from Egypt.
Despite absence of archaeological "evidence", religious conservatives continue to search for
signs of Semitic peoples in Egypt during the New Kingdom. The historicity of the exodus
could not, however, be demonstrated by such an approach. The effort by scholars to change
the date of the exodus from the thirteenth century BC back to the late fifteenth century BC,
cannot be supported on archaeological grounds. It is, furthermore, unlikely that relevant sites
along the principal exodus routes – at which Egyptian artefacts might be found – have not
been discovered. Surveys have been conducted along these routes, and excavations have been
undertaken at a number of these sites. There is no sign of activity during the earlier Hyksos
Period.259 Weinstein260 concludes that there is no archaeological evidence for an exodus as
251
Malamat 1997:15.
252
Malamat 1997:16.
253
See Malamat (1997:17-25) for a discussion of Egyptian sources that might contribute indirectly to substanti-
ate the biblical narrative in the Book of Exodus.
254
Papyrus Leiden 348, and an undated ostracon in hieratic script (Malamat 1997:18).
255
Nineteenth Dynasty is dated 1293-1185 BC; Sethnakht is dated 1185-1182 (Clayton 1994:140, 160).
256
Malamat 1997:22-23.
257
Exodus 3:21-22, ' … and when you go, you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her
neighbor, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewelry, … . So you shall plun-
der the Egyptians'. See also Exodus 3:11-12; 12:35-36.
258
Exodus 1:10, ' … , if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land'.
259
See arguments earlier in this paragraph concerning the possibility that Joseph rose to prominence during the
Hyksos Period, and the ensuing expulsion of Semites at the end of the Hyksos' reign.
260
Weinstein 1997:97-98.
506
described in the Hebrew Bible, and 'if such an event did take place, the number of people in-
volved was so small that no trace is likely to be identified in the archaeological record'. If
there had been an historical exodus, it probably consisted of only several hundreds of Semites
migrating out of Egypt during the late thirteenth or early twelfth century BC. 261
Dozens of sites are listed in the biblical narrative of the wandering of the Israelites in the Wil-
derness. Only a few sites have been identified, of which one is Kadesh-barnea, the place
where the Israelites are said to have sojourned for more or less thirty-eight years.262 Tell el-
Qudeirat near the oasis at ‛Ain Qudeis in the north-eastern Sinai, is linked to biblical Kadesh-
barnea. Not a single artefact from the thirteenth to twelfth century BC – the time frame for
the exodus – has been recovered from this site. Therefore it appears that Kadesh-barnea was
not occupied at an early stage, but became a site of pilgrimage during the Monarchy, at which
time it became associated with the biblical tradition. Hundred years of exploration and exca-
vation in the Sinai Desert yielded little about the "route of the exodus". 263 According to ar-
chaeological data of southern Transjordan, it is clear that sedentary people, including all those
that the biblical texts report the incoming Israelites to have encountered – particularly the
Edomites and the Moabites – were not yet settled in the Late Bronze Age. 'They were simply
not there to be conquered.'264
Kallai265 examines the origin of the appellations "Judah" and "Israel", and their function in
Israelite historiography. The genealogical structure of the people of Israel – the latter which
was later divided into the states of Judah and Israel – who were regarded as brothers had a
distinct prehistory. Scholars cite The Song of Deborah to support the theory that a ten-tribe
league existed before the twelve-tribe system that reflects a unified Israel. He refers to a the-
sis advanced by Aharoni, 266 suggesting that David attempted to unify Israel on the pattern of
twelve tribes, while Israel actually consisted of only six tribes. Apart from this six-tribe Israel
during the period of the settlement, there was also a southern group – consisting of Judah and
its confederates – as well as a Transjordanian group. Kallai, 267 however, finds this view "en-
tirely unacceptable". He indicates that it is difficult to judge the nature of the pre-monarchical
tribal league. He concludes that the terms "Judah" and "Israel", as well as the concept of the
261
Weinstein 1997:87, 93, 95, 97-98.
262
Numbers 13, 14, 20.
263
Dever 2003:19-20.
264
Dever 1997a:22.
265
Kallai 1978:251, 254-255, 261.
266
Aharoni, Y 1966. The land of the Bible, 233-235, 267. London (Kallai 1978:254).
267
Kallai 1978:254.
507
"Ten Tribes" were used in scribal tradition and had a deep-rooted place in the national con-
sciousness.
According to the biblical account in Numbers 1, the twelve tribes of Israel appear for the first
time as such when Moses orders a census of the people of Israel at Sinai. The men of the
tribe of Levi – which would have totalled the tribes to thirteen – were not registered. The
number twelve was far more important in the Hebrew Bible than was the actual reality of the
Israelite tribes. The choice of the number twelve – linked to the months of the year – proba-
bly had its basis in rituals connected to worship in the Temple. Its origin should, therefore, in
all likelihood, be found in the liturgical sphere; it took on particular importance among the
priesthood in Jerusalem in the Achaemenid Period.268 Although a division of ten tribes in the
formation of the Northern state of Israel, and two tribes linked to the Southern state of Judah,
is affirmed in the biblical text, it has little foundation.269
The scheme of the twelve tribes of Israel occupies a central position in the Hebrew Bible; the
concept is employed extensively, particularly in biblical historiography. The order of births
and the matrilineal relationships probably reflect, and are related to, the establishment of the
tribes and their major clans in the country. Scholars suggested that an early Israelite amphic-
tyony270 had existed, which could have been instrumental in the formation of a tribal league.
It is generally assumed that the grouping of the tribes, according to the mothers of the epony-
mous ancestors, represents a special bond among the member tribes. Apart from two major
genealogical arrangements, the tribal systems also included definite geographically orientated
lists. The pre-eminence of the tribe of Judah is obvious in its prime position to the Tabernacle
on its east side;271 Judah's relation to the priesthood and Temple is thus emphasised. The
Tabernacle was built by a Judahite. 272 Joshua 13-19 presents a detailed description of the al-
lotment of the land to the different tribes according to a geographical system, which could be
defined on the basis of territorial descriptions. 'The order of the tribes is governed by a co m-
bination of geographical and genealogical patterns, undoubtedly also influenced by theoretical
considerations.'273 Points of contact between the genealogical representation of the tribal in-
terrelationships and the geographical distribution of the tribes substantiate the suggestion that
268
See footnote in § 4.3.13 regarding the Achaemenids.
269
Garbini 1988:121-124.
270
Amphictyony: 'a political system in which six or twelve clans or tribes are bound together by some interest
common to them all, usually a shared religion with a central shrine'. Such a system constitutes a weak political
and military unity (Deist 1990:10).
271
Numbers 2:2-3.
272
Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur (Ex 31:1-12). See also the genealogy of Judah in 1 Chronicles 2:4-5, 9, 18-20.
273
Kallai 1997:79.
508
all schemes stem from one formalised structure. It is therefore clear that no historical situa-
tion created the different schemes; literary formulations were thus applied in these systems to
reflect a particular emphasis. Tribal lists feature in different contexts from Genesis to Judges,
and thereafter only in 1 Chronicles and Ezekiel. Sporadic genealogical data 'indicate a highly
complex and variegated process of the settling in the land that involves movement of clans
and tribes'. 274 Certain historical aspects may be gleaned from tribal lists that indicate devel-
opments in ancient Israel. 275
Newman276 suggests that it was the Rachel-group – which was the nuclear root of the Joseph
(Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin tribes – 'which made a decisive penetration into the
land of Canaan across the Jordan river in the latter part of the thirteenth century'. The group
was under leadership of Joshua. Joshua's theophorous277 name probably had its origin in Mo-
saic circles. There were clearly many groups in Canaan who responded favourably to these
invaders with their radically new religion. Dever278 denotes that elements of the old tribes of
Ephraim and Manasseh – "the house of Joseph"– may indeed originally have been slaves in
Egypt, making their way to Canaan independently. On their way they could have made con-
tact with nomadic tribes in southern Transjordan, who worshipped a deity Yahweh. Textual
tradition in the Hebrew Bible was shaped disproportionately by southern groups in Judah,
who were centred around Jerusalem. Descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh were probably
among these groups. Dever279 presupposes 'a complex, multifaceted process for the formation
of the later literary tradition of the origin stories'. Biblical writers and editors interpreted
events, never claiming that the ancient literature was historical – as in a modern sense. It was
probably only the "house of Joseph" who had been in Egypt; they told the story, and, as a
matter of course, eventually included all those who considered themselves part of biblical Is-
rael. 'In time most people no doubt believed that they had been in Egypt'. 280
The Book of Joshua continues the story line that started in the Book of Exodus. It recounts a
classic theme in biblical tradition, describing how Israel came to be settled in the land of Ca-
naan – land that Yahweh gave to them. The "conquest" was a recurring motive in narratives,
which was explained to children and worshippers. Although the name of the book elicits
274
Kallai 1997:88.
275
Kallai 1997:53, 55, 57, 64, 72, 79, 86, 88.
276
Newman 1985:175.
277
For an explanation of "theophorous", see "theophoric name" incorporated in a footnote in § 2.3.
278
Dever 1997a:46.
279
Dever 1997a:47.
280
Dever 1997a:47.
509
mental images of a massive invasion by a unified army, a substantial part of the book is de-
voted to the crossing of the Jordan and preparations for the first battle. The second major
segment of the book relates a number of warfare stories, while chapters 13-21 give an account
of the allotment of the land to the different tribes, as well as the cities and pasturelands allot-
ted to the tribe of Levi. The book concludes with a renewal of the Covenant at Shechem. 281
Coats282 suggests 'that the exposition to the narrative in the book of Joshua plays a double
role'. It introduces narratives about Joshua, as well as about the conquest of the land, confess-
ing about God's powerful deeds. The book therefore 'appears as both the conquest theme with
its emphasis on God's mighty act and a heroic saga with its emphasis on the mighty acts of
Joshua'. 283 The image of Joshua – the heroic leader – had been modelled on the image of Mo-
ses. 284 Drinkard285 refers to current debates that focus on the definition of history, the con-
struction thereof, and the relationship between history and the actual events of the past. Ar-
chaeology is a legitimate component of history; alongside literary remains, the archaeological
record is often the only feature on which the perception of the history could be based. Ar-
chaeology has produced some evidence that seemingly support the account of the conquest,
but at the same time several key sites have yielded conflicting data. However, the biblical
record should not be discarded as unreliable, although there are problems to interpret the bib-
lical material. Historiography in the biblical period was not as rigid as it is in modern times –
yet, even now, reporting is never unbiased. Nakai286 denotes – as also mentioned earlier in
this paragraph – that the biblical portrayal of the conquest by a "unified" Israel is unsubstanti-
ated; the theme was probably employed to legitimise territorial acquisition in the time of the
Monarchy.
According to Yadin, 287 at the end of the Late Bronze Age many fortified cities were de-
stroyed; archaeological evidence indicates that the destructions cannot be attributed to earth-
quakes of famine. The biblical narrative relates how nomadic Israelites destroyed Canaanite
cities and set them on fire. These cities were replaced by unfortified cities or settlements. He
emphasises, however, that, although the archaeological record – in its broad outline – supports
the narratives in Joshua and Judges, he is not of the opinion 'that the entire conquest account
281
Boling 1992:1002-1003, 1007.
282
Coats 1987:21.
283
Coats 1987:21.
284
Coats 1987:26.
285
Drinkard 1998:171, 175, 177, 181.
286
Nakai 2003:142.
287
Yadin 1982:18-19, 21.
510
in Joshua and Judges is historically accurate in every detail or that it is historically worth-
less.'288 Should the biblical narratives and archaeological data correspond, it is reasonable to
accept the particular biblical source. At the end of the Late Bronze Age there was a marked
decline in political and economic stability in Canaan; it is therefore not surprising that semi-
nomadic tribes were able to conquer fortified cities.
Malamat289 denotes that biblical historiography explained historical events theologically. Yet,
this ancient conquest tradition reflects military strategy, and an intimate and authentic
knowledge of the topography and demography of the land. The Canaanites lacked a basic ter-
ritorial defence system and made no attempt to stop the Israelites from crossing the Jordan.
Nonetheless, despite their military knowledge, it is difficult to explain how semi-nomadic Is-
raelite tribes could successfully conquer fortified Canaanite cities that had formidable chariot-
ry, as well as well-trained forces familiar with superior technology.
The traditional biblical account of the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan localises it as
across the Jordan River opposite Jericho. Joshua 6 relates how the city was conquered by
Joshua's men, and 'they burned the city with fire, and everything in it'. 290 Scholars have lately
suggested that the principal entry into Canaan from the Transjordan occurred in the northern
part of the Judean Valley through the Damiyeh pass, and elsewhere opposite Shechem, and
thus not at Jericho. According to Deuteronomy 27:4, Moses commanded the Israelites to
build an altar on Mount Ebal291 as soon as they had crossed the Jordan. An historical memory
was probably preserved by a group of northern tribes who entered the land from Gilead and
the Succoth Valley. 292 Mount Ebal is some distance north of Jericho; it is totally unlikely that
a large number of people could have reached this site from Jericho in a short period of time.
The altar site uncovered at Mount Ebal conforms to the biblical accounts in Deuteronomy 27
and Joshua 8.293 Zertal294 denotes that archaeological data indicate that the Israelites came
from outside Canaan, from the east; evidence that is 'clearly inconsistent with the theory cur-
rently [1991] fashionable in some circles that Israel emerged out of Canaanite society'.
288
Yadin 1982:19.
289
Malamat 1982:26-28.
290
Joshua 6:24.
291
Mount Ebal is a large mountain located just north of Shechem in the central Samaria mountains. It was the
site of an important Israelite ceremony associated with the instruction of Moses (Dt 27:4-8) concerning the
building of an altar of unhewn stones, sacrifices and a special liturgy. Many scholars accept the authenticity of
the event, as described in Deuteronomy (Dt 27:4-8) and Joshua (Jos 8:30-35) (Zertal 1992:255, 258).
292
Succoth Valley: see footnote in § 2.7.
293
Zertal 1991:37-38, 45.
294
Zertal 1991:46.
511
According to Kenyon, 295 excavations during the early twentieth century at Tell es-Sultan –
universally accepted as the site of ancient Jericho – uncovered remains of a town wall that
could have collapsed "at the sound of the trumpet and shouting". Scholars were keen to
demonstrate that archaeology could "prove" the truth of the biblical text. However, some
decades later excavations revealed that the wall in question had surrounded an Early Bronze
Age town, dated ca 2350 BC. Due to erosion it is unlikely that any evidence would be uncov-
ered that could be connected with defences of Jericho. Recovered pottery at the site is linked
to a settlement on the tell, dated 1400-1325 BC. Thereafter, the earliest date for inhabitants
on the site was from the eleventh to tenth century BC. 296 Ramsey297 mentions that later exca-
vations at Jericho 'revealed nothing to indicate a habitation of any significance in the thir-
teenth century'. Walls which have been attributed to a fourteenth century BC destruction –
during earlier excavations – were later identified as structures which were brought down be-
fore the end of the third millennium BC.
After the "fall of Jericho", Ai was attacked.298 Dever299 indicates that extensive excavations
revealed that both Jericho and Ai300 were deserted much earlier than the date attributed to the
conquest. There is no evidence of occupation of Ai during the thirteenth century BC. It had
been completely abandoned since ca 2000 BC, apart from phases of domestic activity from
the late thirteenth into the tenth century BC. Thus, 'contrary to the biblical tradition, this
"Proto-Israelite" village is not founded on the ruins of a destroyed Canaanite city'. 301 Ram-
sey302 agrees that Ai was uninhabited during the period ascribed to the attack by Joshua's men.
Zevit 303 denotes that 'two major archaeological expeditions have been conducted at the site of
Khirbet et-Tell, between Jericho and Bethel'. According to the archaeological evidence –
which is apparent – an unwalled village existed on the tell ca 3100-3000 BC. This village de-
veloped to a major walled city ca 3000-2860 BC. The city was destroyed between 2550-2350
BC. Thereafter the site remained unoccupied; no evidence of a Middle Bronze Age 304
295
Kenyon 1987:72-75.
296
Scholars generally date the exodus ca 1290 BC or later; the conquest therefore would have been a few dec-
ades later, thus during the thirteenth or twelfth century BC.
297
Ramsey 1981:69-70.
298
Joshua 7 and 8.
299
Dever 1997a:23, 30.
300
The name Ai – in Hebrew and Arabic – means "the ruin-heap". It was a prominent landmark (Dever
1997a:30).
301
Dever 1997a:30.
302
Ramsey 1981:70.
303
Zevit 1985:58. Khirbet et-Tell is linked to biblical Ai.
304
Middle Bronze Age, 2200-1500 BC (Zevit 1985:58).
512
or Late Bronze Age305 settlement has been found at the site. Zevit 306 supports Albright,307
who concluded that Ai was destroyed centuries before the alleged invasion by Israel. There is
also the possibility that the site Khirbet et-Tell308 has been designated erroneously as biblical
Ai. Yet, Zevit 309 mentions that 'in the course of my visits to et-Tell, I have been struck by the
astounding extent to which the topographic details of the battle of Ai stated or implied in the
Biblical accounts can be identified on the ground at Khirbet et-Tell and the immediate vicini-
ty'. However, although these topographical and geographical details reinforce the considera-
tion to identify et-Tell with Ai, it does not prove that the "Ai story" actually occurred. An-
cient historians who interpreted the event presumably believed that the account of the con-
quest of Ai was true.310 Boling311 denotes that scholars often regard the battle of Jericho as
mainly liturgical, while the story of Ai is entirely aetiological.
Joshua 10:31 relates that Joshua and his men laid siege to Lachish and fought against it.
Lachish was a central biblical city in the Shephelah, 312 and one of the key sites in the biblical
account of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. According to Joshua 10:32, 'the LORD gave
Lachish into the hand of Israel'. Ussishkin 313 refers to archaeological excavations that were
carried out at Tel Lachish, 'which is almost certainly the site of ancient Lachish'. Level VI –
twelfth century BC – was a large and prosperous Canaanite city, which was destroyed by a
"terrible" fire, sometime around 1150 BC, or even later. This Canaanite city maintained im-
portant connections with Egypt. Although Egypt apparently still had effective jurisdiction
over most of southern Canaan during the latter part of the twelfth century BC, the sudden de-
struction of Lachish Level VI is an indication that Egypt had lost control; unfortified Lachish
– without Egypt's protection – was an easy prey to the enemy. Despite the fact that archaeo-
logical data have no evidence as to who the enemy was, it does indeed fit the biblical descrip-
tion.314 The motive for the destruction remains unclear since the Israelites did not occupy the
305
Late Bronze Age, 1500-1250 BC (Zevit 1985:58).
306
Zevit 1985:61.
307
American biblical archaeologist William F Albright.
308
Khirbet et-Tell is its modern Arabic designation. This Arabic name – literally meaning "the ruin of the tell" –
has been used to support the identification of the site as biblical Ai (Zevit 1985:61-62).
309
Zevit 1985:64.
310
Zevit 1985:58-59, 61-62, 64-65, 68.
311
Boling 1992:1009.
312
Shephelah: see footnote on Lachish in § 2.13.
313
Ussishkin 1987:20.
314
The absence of fortifications enabled the Israelite army to seize the city on the second day. The completely
deserted city explains the annihilation of the inhabitants (Jos 10:31-33) (Ussishkin 1987:38).
513
site or settle in the vicinity. It remained unoccupied until the tenth century BC. 315 Ussish-
kin316 indicates that 'the conquest of Lachish stands out as a unique event in the Biblical story
of the Israelite conquest of Canaan and the archaeological data fit the Biblical text in every
detail'. Therefore, if the destruction of Canaanite Lachish is attributable to Joshua and his
men, the biblical tradition of the conquest is dated – on archaeological grounds – to about
1150 BC, or even later.317
Based on archaeological data, scholars agree that Canaanite Hazor was destroyed in the thir-
teenth century BC. 318 If the Israelite tribes conquered Hazor – as related in Joshua319 – 'then
we must conclude that the Biblical concept of a swift campaign by Joshua's forces is incom-
patible with the archaeological evidence, because this evidence discloses that two major Ca-
naanite cities, Lachish and Hazor, were destroyed about a century apart'. 320 Ben-Tor321 indi-
cates that the fall of Hazor – according to the biblical narrative – was one of the most signifi-
cant events in the process of conquest and settlement. Excavations at the site clearly indicate
that the city was violently ravaged. Archaeologically, the version in the Book of Joshua en-
joys precedence over the account as presented in the Book of Judges.322 Four groups323 could
be considered responsible for Hazor's final disaster. All of these groups have been ruled out,
except for the "Israelites". Thus, seemingly the city was destroyed by the latter people. 324
The Book of Joshua, thus, relates how the powerful kings of Canaan were defeated in a
"lightning military campaign", so that Israel's destiny could be fulfilled when the tribes inher-
ited their land. However, the general political and military scene of Canaan intimates that a
"lightning invasion" by the group under the leadership of Joshua 'would have been impractical
and unlikely in the extreme'. 325 Nonetheless, the book is not a total "imaginary fable"; the
campaigns followed a logical geographical order and reflect the geography of the land of Is-
rael accurately. 326 The core of the Hebrew Bible, therefore, could be described as an "epic
315
Ussishkin 1987:20-22, 34-35, 38.
316
Ussishkin 1987:38.
317
Ussishkin 1987:38-39.
318
Ussishkin 1987:39.
319
Joshua 11:1-13.
320
Ussishkin 1987:39.
321
Ben-Tor 1998:456.
322
Judges 4:2, 17.
323
Suitable candidates responsible for the disaster could be, the Sea Peoples, a rival Canaanite city, the Egyp-
tians, or the "Israelites" (Ben-Tor 1998:465).
324
Ben-Tor 1998:456, 465. For a discussion on the probability that the "Israelites" conquered Hazor, see Ben-
Tor (1998:456-466).
325
Finkelstein & Silberman 2001:76.
326
Finkelstein & Silberman 2001:72, 76, 78.
514
story" that relates 'the rise of the people of Israel and their continuing relationship with
God'.327
Wessels 328 identifies two portrayals of the "conquest of the land". Firstly, the Book of Joshua
sketches great military victories – which could be compared to the invasions by the Assyrians
and the Babylonians into Palestine – in which the whole country is conquered in a relatively
short time. In contrast to this type of onslaughts, the Book of Judges describes the conquering
of the land as a gradual and incomplete process. It is evident that at least more than one au-
thor/redactor worked on the text of Judges, each of whom viewed the events from a different
perspective. It is thus inevitable that the integration of various sources would have caused
discrepancies in the accounts concerning the conquering of Canaan. 329 Craig330 reviews re-
search done on the Book of Judges during the last decade of the twentieth century. Apart
from the discussion of major characters, feminist interpretations and literary treatments of the
book are also examined. He concludes that, despite the tremendous interest amongst scholars,
he 'was unable to find an article that applied the tools of multiple approaches to a single
text'.331
Since the early years of the twentieth century, scholars have postulated various models to in-
terpret and clarify the so-called settlement process of those tribes who later called themselves
the Israelite nation. No consensus has, as yet, been reached. Lengthy debates have been on-
going for many decades, and innumerable publications have seen the light on this enigmatic
question. This thesis comprises different disciplines, which – to my mind – is relevant to my
research problem. It is, therefore, not possible to include extensive discussions and analyses
of these aforementioned debates. The particular models and what they entail are thus referred
to only cursorily, and not deliberated in depth.
Gnuse332 denotes that scholars' perception of the formative period in Israel's history influences
their discernment of the biblical theological message. Consequently, different scholarly mod-
els have been developed. These models, in their turn, inspire particular theologies or ideolo-
gies; the revolutionary model, for instance, advocated ideas which encouraged liberation and
327
328
Wessels 1996:184.
329
Wessels 1996:184, 187-188.
330
Craig 2003:159, 170-171, 174-175. See Craig (2003:159-175) for a discussion of research done during the
period 1990-2003 on the Book of Judges. Craig surveys a large number of relevant articles and monographs.
331
Craig 2003:174-175.
332
Gnuse 1991a:56.
515
social reform. Traditionally, three different theories have been advanced for many decades,
namely peaceful infiltration, violent conquest, or social revolution. As from the 1980s, schol-
ars – who now had new conceptions – proposed several variations on the traditional models.
'This new alternative builds upon more thorough archaeological research and a reassessment
of many sociological and anthropological theories used previously by scholars.'333 Gnuse334 is
of the opinion that 'one could almost speak of a "paradigm shift" … for much of the same data
is now being interpreted in a new fashion.'
In the 1920s Albrecht Alt postulated that the Israelites infiltrated gradually and peacefully
from the Transjordan into the Cisjordan. Martin Noth incorporated this theory a number of
years later into an historical survey. This model suggests that the process took place in two
stages. Firstly, pastoral nomads had repeatedly entered the land, settled down and took up
agriculture. In the second stage their increased numbers came in conflict with the Canaanites;
these encounters eventually stimulated the development of the Joshua and Judges chronicles.
Tribal identity emerged gradually, reaching final unity during the time of David. 335 The Isra-
elite amphictyony336 theory, formulated by Martin Noth, was advanced to explain how tribes
of various origins, settling under different circumstances, 'became united in the worship of
Yahweh and eventually developed into the nation of Israel'. 337 Noth based his study on the
tribal lists in the Hebrew Bible. Israel is described as a community of twelve tribes, descend-
ed from the twelve sons of Jacob; the Leah group of tribes represents an older amphictyonic
formation of six tribes. By comparing his proposal with the classical amphictyony, 338 Noth
suggested that the 'reality of premonarchic Israelite life might be clarified' 339 by this analogy.
Since the 1970s this theory, however, has been criticised, particularly considering 'the histori-
cal and geographical distance which separates premonarchic Israel from the classical amphic-
tyony'. 340 It is, nevertheless, not impossible that amphictyonic relationships had existed be-
tween groups of tribes, or other social units, united on particular grounds. 341 Drinkard342 de-
notes that the Israeli archaeologist, Yohanan Aharoni, promoted the peaceful
333
Gnuse 1991a:56.
334
Gnuse 1991a:56.
335
Gnuse 1991a:56-57.
336
See an earlier footnote in this paragraph.
337
Ramsey 1981:88.
338
See Mayes (1992:212) for an explanation of the classical amphictyony. From the fourth century BC the term
was applied to a sacred league, which later had its centre at the shrine of Apollo at Delphi, in Greece (Mayes
1992:212).
339
Mayes 1992:213.
340
Mayes 1992:214.
341
Mayes 1992:216.
342
Drinkard 1998:179.
516
settlement model, based mainly on his surveys and excavations in the Negeb. A number of
new settlements – dated the thirteenth century BC - were uncovered on previously uninhabit-
ed sites. These communities were attributed to Hebrew tribes who gradually settled down.
Weinfeld343 indicates that the intention of the migrating tribes were to settle in unoccupied
territories in the "promised land", rather than in the inhabited cities. They resorted to warfare
and conquest only after confrontation with the residents of the cities.
American and Israeli archaeologists – led by William Albright – challenged the above Ger-
man theories. They declared that a systematic, unified, military conquest took place, which
could have been even more extensive than the description in the Book of Joshua. According
to these scholars, they determined that important Canaanite cities had been destroyed in the
late thirteenth century BC and subsequently apparently had been occupied by Iron Age Israel-
ites; similarly – according to these scholars – surveys in the Transjordan 'reinforced the pic-
ture of a violent invasion by the Israelites'.344 Drinkard345 mentions that, although archaeolog-
ical data support the conquest model in some instances, there is conflicting evidence at sever-
al key sites. According to him, 'archaeology is a legitimate component of history' 346 and has a
rightful place alongside literary remains. However, the biblical record should not be discard-
ed as unreliable, despite problems interpreting the biblical material. Dever 347 indicates that
the conquest model has been drawn directly from the Book of Joshua.
A third model – advanced by the American School348– developed during the 1960s and 1970s.
George Mendenhall formally constructed the social revolutionary theory, which was later de-
veloped, particularly by Norman Gottwald. According to this model, impoverished Canaan-
ites, oppressed by Egyptian taxation and the burden of a political city-state system, revolted;
they burned the cities and fled to the highlands where they created an 'egalitarian state by the
process of retribalization'.349 Terracing enabled living in the highlands; these artificially built
terraces over exposed bedrock dominate the highland landscapes of Palestine. This practice
was intimately connected with the Iron Age I expansion of settlements in the highlands. 350
Mendenhall believed that a group of Yahweh worshippers from Egypt were the source of the
343
Weinfeld 1988:325.
344
Gnuse 1991a:57.
345
Drinkard 1998:174, 177, 181.
346
Drinkard 1998:174.
347
Dever 1997a:22.
348
See paragraph above – School of American and Israeli archaeologists.
349
Gnuse 1991a:57.
350
Gibson 2001:113-114. For a detailed description of the Iron Age I highland terraces, see Gibson (2001:113-
140).
517
revolt. Peasants from the cities, and habiru – already in the highlands – grouped together to
worship this new god, Yahweh; they 'continued to wage war on the Canaanites'. 351 Gnuse352
denotes that Gottwald 'de-emphasizes the importance of the Yahweh group from the
Transjordan', and that his 'use of Marxist categories distances him from Mendenhall's empha-
sis upon covenantal religion'. Bimson353 is of the opinion that Mendenhall's theory proffers
the best explanation for the origin of the biblical tradition. 354
According to Chikafu,355 the influence of the various scholars – who developed the models
under discussion – on biblical studies, should not be underestimated. However, he emphasis-
es that the presuppositions of exegetes inevitably direct their interpretation of a text; a text
could thus be 'manipulated in order to fit into a predetermined framework of the interpret-
er'.356 These traditional models were also developed on the premise of different types of audi-
ences to whom they are directed. 357 All three models have been criticised by scholars.
Only a few points of criticism, concerning the three traditional models, are mentioned hereaf-
ter. Considering the extent of matter discussed in this thesis, it is hardly possible to deliberate
on, and refer to, the many different comments and critique expressed by numerous scholars.
Gnuse358 mentions that the main criticism of the "peaceful infiltration model" is the propo-
nents' inability to exhibit that Israel emanated from outside Palestine – as they have suggest-
ed. Alt, furthermore, assumed that settlement was preceded by nomadism; the biblical text,
however, implies that the Wilderness was a difficult and unaccepted place for the Israelites to
survive, or to follow a nomadic lifestyle by choice. Furthermore, the general perception of
scholars that the Israelite and Late Bronze Age Canaanite cultures had much in common is
inconsistent with the view of Alt who proposed that the Israelites were aliens to the land.
This model, likewise, discredits the conquest chronicles on the presumption that they
351
Gnuse 1991a:57.
352
Gnuse 1991a:57.
353
Bimson 1989:9.
354
Mendenhall proposed that a group that had migrated out of Egypt and became a covenant community at Sinai,
subsequently entered Canaan. These people were later joined by larger groups; the latter who identified them-
selves fully with the deliverance from Egypt. 'The original historic events with which all groups identified them-
selves took precedence over and eventually excluded the detailed historical traditions of particular groups who
had joined later' (Bimson 1989:9).
355
Chikafu 1993:11, 18.
356
Chikafu 1993:18.
357
See Chikafu (1993:18-21, 23-24) for an exposition of the audiences to whom the models would have been
directed.
358
Gnuse 1991a:57.
518
were created to function as aetiologies. Ramsey359 confirms that Alt and his followers have
been criticised for these "unwarranted conclusions" regarding the biblical conquest narratives.
There is also no archaeological evidence that indicates the arrival of newcomers in Canaan in
the vicinity of 1200 BC. According to Bimson, 360 although this theory takes specific biblical
traditions into consideration, 'it clearly rejects the overall picture of Israel's origins found in
the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua'. Dever 361 agrees with Ramsey362 that archaeological
discoveries have not confirmed peaceful infiltration of urban Canaanite society; however, a
few archaeological traces of pastoral nomads have been found. Scholars lately judge the de-
sert origins of the Israelites as a "romanticised fiction" of later writers; possibly there were
only a few of their ancestors who had ever been nomads. 'This model has fallen into neglect
or disrepute'. 363
Proponents of the "violent conquest" model 'were challenged for their assumption that ar-
chaeology might be used to verify biblical texts';364 archaeological evidence is, however, am-
biguous.365 Further criticism of this theory indicates that there is also the possibility that the
cities were ravaged by either the Egyptians or the Sea Peoples;366 incomprehensibly, the Isra-
elites did not settle in their so-called "conquered" regions,367 but established themselves
'mainly in areas removed from the sites of the Canaanite cities in the Galilee'. 368 Some of the
cities – claimed to have been destroyed by the Israelites – were uninhabited during the time
when the Israelites supposedly invaded the land. 369 Bimson370 indicates that since Kathleen
Kenyon's excavations at Jericho in the 1950s, scholars have accepted that there are no traces
that the city was destroyed by Joshua. 371 According to Dever,372 'the model has fared so badly
archaeologically that it has been almost entirely abandoned by biblical scholars in the last two
decades'. [Dever's article was published in 1997]. An external origin of the Israelites is also
unlikely, considering a continuity of material culture between them and the Canaanites. 373
359
Ramsey 1981:79, 88-89, 92.
360
Bimson 1989:7.
361
Dever 1997a:24-25.
362
Ramsey 1981:92.
363
Dever 1997a:25.
364
Gnuse 1991a:58.
365
Ramsey 1981:69.
366
See footnote in § 2.7 incorporating the "Sea Peoples".
367
Gnuse 1991a:58.
368
Fritz 1987:92.
369
Gnuse 1991a:58.
370
Bimson 1989:5.
371
See earlier discussions in this paragraph about cities supposedly attacked and destroyed by Joshua and his
men.
372
Dever 1997a:22.
373
Gnuse 1991a:58.
519
Fritz374 describes this hypothesis as a 'naive adoption of the traditional interpretation of the
book of Joshua'. He indicates that the downward trend of the Canaanite cities stretched from
at least 1200 BC to 1150 BC, and was, therefore, not a rapid event. Their decline coincided
with the dwindling Egyptian hegemony. He, furthermore, mentions that, according to archae-
ological analyses, the Canaanite culture of the Early Iron Age was markedly dependent upon
the culture of the Late Bronze Age, thereby precluding an invasion of the country by new
peoples.375
The "social revolution hypothesis" 'has drawn the most extensive response'. 376 The propo-
nents of this model have been unable to justify their suggestion that a peasants' revolt took
place in ancient Israel, or elsewhere. They tend to impose modern ideologies – particularly
Marxist – upon the ancient Israelites. These scholars are also not well versed in anthropologi-
cal and sociological theory; they lack knowledge about tribal structures and nomads, as well
as the interrelationship of pastoral and sedentary manners of existence. Their background in
biblical studies, including acquaintance with prevailing archaeological data and familiarity
with the question of the habiru, is inadequate. Their emphasis on the importance of iron in
the settlement process does not take into account that the general use of this metal was not
before the tenth century BC, or even later.377 Gnuse378 concludes that these scholars 'uncon-
sciously rely upon outmoded intellectual paradigms taken from biblical studies scholarship of
a previous generation. The notion of early covenantal relationships and an amphictyonic
league are presumed without justifying the use of these now discredited biblical images'.
In the introduction to his comprehensive and classic The Tribes of Yahweh, Gottwald379 de-
notes that, according to Exodus 1-24, 'a religious revolt and a social revolt clearly go hand in
hand'. The people in Exodus decided that they no longer passively accepted their undesirable
social situation as a – previously unknown – God intended to change their general position.
This new religion revolutionised the perception of the people; they were convinced that they
should break with an intolerable or unsatisfactory contemporary past, as something more wor-
thy was not only possible, but necessary. In his exposition, Gottwald 380 declares, inter alia,
that the "revolt model" could account for a significant volume of the contents of narratives
374
Fritz 1987:84.
375
Fritz 1987:90, 97.
376
Gnuse 1991a:58.
377
Gnuse 1991a:59.
378
Gnuse 1991a:59.
379
Gottwald 1979:xxi. See also bibliography in this thesis.
380
Gottwald 1979:210.
520
describing Israel's entry into Canaan, considering that Israel was composed of a large sector
of the Canaanites – those who had revolted against their overlords – who joined forces with
invaders – or infiltrators – from the desert. Gottwald 381 mentions, nonetheless, that 'not only
are all the accounts of Israel's origin highly problematic to date, but the models so far pro-
posed are increasingly seen not as totally separate models in all respects but as constructs
along a continuum that simultaneously share some interpretations of the evidence and disa-
gree on other interpretations'. He does, however, have 'grave doubts about the biblical ac-
counts of a mass exodus and conquest'.382
Key terms in Gottwald's "Tribes" are "religion", "liberated" and "sociology". Dever 383 states
that he cannot do justice in his publication384 to 'Gottwald's bold, controversial programmic
statement, which many now regard as one of the most seminal works of 20th-century Ameri-
can biblical scholarship'. Ironically, it was initially hailed as revolutionary, then subjected to
criticism – partly owing to its Marxist orientation – and then overlooked. Dever,385 further-
more, denotes that some biblical scholars were not familiar with Gottwald's particular disci-
pline and 'dismissed its heavily anthropological discourse as jargon'. His model projected
"class struggle" and "peasant revolts". Few scholars appreciated his emphasis on indigenous
origins, which later proved to be correct – most early Israelites were "displaced Canaanites".
Despite the affinity between the theories of Mendenhall and Gottwald, the latter's "revolt"
model was "violently opposed" by Mendenhall.
Boer386 mentions that "everyone" seems to know that Gottwald is a Marxist. He devoted his
major work "Tribes" to the reconstruction of the new society and ideology of early Israel.
Any idealist construction, however, 'cannot avoid the implications of a mythical or theological
core'.387 He judges this work of Gottwald as 'a Marxist text, a socialist work of biblical schol-
arship', 388 In response to Boer, and other scholars' criticism, Gottwald 389 contends that the
"Tribes" challenges traditional biblical scholarship, opening "Pandora's box" of problems and
possibilities with regard to the social critical study of the Hebrew Bible. He indicates that,
381
Gottwald 1993:165.
382
Gottwald 1993:173.
383
Dever 2005:40.
384
Dever, W G 2005. Did God have a wife? See bibliography in this thesis.
385
Dever 2003:54.
386
Boer 2002b:98.
387
Boer 2002a:1-2.
388
Boer 2002a:2.
389
Gottwald 2002:173-174.
521
despite criticism by scholars, these academics acknowledge particular accomplishments of
"Tribes".390
The three different theories or models provide the foundation to consider a new model con-
cerning the establishment of an Israelite nation. The effectiveness of both the peaceful infil-
tration model and the peasants' revolt model is manifest on account of the view of the propo-
nents that early Israel emanated, to a great extent, from the indigenous population of Canaan.
Overwhelming archaeological evidence signifies an inherent Canaanite origin of most early
Israelites. 391 In this regard Dever 392 proposes to adopt Volkmar Fritz's term "symbiosis",
which denotes 'common, local, overlapping roots of both Canaanite and Israelite society (and
religion as well) in the thirteenth - eleventh centuries BCE'. The process of change, which
was relatively slow and complex, involved a great deal of assimilation. 393 Fritz394 explains
that the cultural dependence and adoption of the Canaanite culture by the Israelite tribes could
have been possible only by the supposition that close relations existed between these two
groups before the twelfth century BC, hence the term "symbiosis hypothesis". Bimson 395 dis-
cusses a number of theories according to which the Israelites are indigenous to Canaan.
Gnuse396 indicates that out of discussions involving the traditional three models, new percep-
tions are beginning to take root amongst scholars. Several variations have been proposed on,
what might be called, the peaceful internal model. He suggests a more complex typology of
"peaceful withdrawal" that could be a new approach to the settlement process. Gnuse, 397 fur-
thermore, indicates that archaeologists lately realise the importance of continuity of Israelite
material culture with that of Canaanite antecedents. Evidence obtained from unfortified,
peaceful Israelite highland villages links them to urban centres in the lowlands. New perspec-
tives emerged revealing that there was no uniformity in the total picture of settlement history.
Highland culture was seemingly an "outgrowth" of urban culture in the lowlands; examples
are that highland farming techniques acquired from Late Bronze Age Canaanite prototypes –
and the use of and particular forms of bronze tools – reflect Canaanite origins. Certain sites –
previously classified as Israelite – are now regarded to be Canaanite highland villages. The
390
See Gottwald (2002:173-174) for a synopsis of achievements accomplished in the publication of The Tribes
of Yahweh.
391
Dever 1997a:25-26.
392
Dever 1997a:26.
393
Dever 1997a:25-26.
394
Fritz 1987:98.
395
Bimson 1989:10-13.
396
Gnuse 1991a:59.
397
Gnuse 1991a:59-60.
522
general feeling amongst scholars is that a satisfactory distinction cannot be drawn between the
Israelites and Canaanites in the early period of settlement. Archaeologists are therefore re-
garding 'Israelite settlement as an internal process which was peaceful'. 398 This view – termed
peaceful withdrawal – could be a combination of Alt's perception and the internal origin of
the "social revolution" theory. The proposal 'perceives that the Israelites were really Canaan-
ites who quietly left their cities and moved to the highlands where they gradually evolved into
Israelites'. 399
According to Gnuse,400 an extensive evaluation of highland Israelite settlements in Iron Age I

was offered by David Hopkins, whose work is a thorough and objective analysis of the Iron
Age highland agriculture; it comprises abundant information supportive of the peaceful set-
tlement model. 'Social factors – the cooperation of many people networking in a developing
tribal or kinship system – actually led to a successful settlement of the highlands. The cause
of state formation was social, not technological. Survival required cooperation … .'401 The
dispersion of villages testifies to a population increase, mainly due to new people joining the
villages. These newcomers were pastoralists and agriculturalists who relocated in response to
the demand for survival; there was no invasion or outside infiltration. Hopkins' research thus
reinforces the theory that the Israelite settlement was a peaceful process which occurred inter-
nally, within Canaan.
In the light of the view of many scholars lately that the Israelites were indigenous to the high-
lands – even before the collapse of the Canaanite city states – Gnuse402 reviews a contempo-
rary trend, which emphasises the 'evolutionary nature of cultural and religious development'.
The Israelites – who were pastoral nomads – were indigenous to the land of Canaan, where
they had originated centuries prior to the conquest. They were ethnically different from the
Canaanites, but interacted culturally and therefore achieved similarity in material culture.
Although primarily a sedentarised people, they also comprised families who had been internal
nomads or habiru who settled down. Gnuse403 evaluates models advanced by different schol-
ars and draws the conclusion that these models emphasise Israel's internal and peaceful origin.
They are in diametric opposition to the violent conquest and social revolution models. The
398
Gnuse 1991a:60.
399
Gnuse 1991a:60.
400
Gnuse (1991a:60-62) discusses the development of the theory and the contributions – in this regard – by vari-
ous scholars. Gnuse (1991a:60-61) views the contribution by David Hopkins as the 'most extensive evaluation
of highland settlements in Iron Age I'.
401
Gnuse 1991a:60.
402
Gnuse 1991b:109-110.
403
Gnuse 1991b:109-116.
523
new proposals necessarily have theological and ethical implications. Scholars previously
stressed the contrast between Israelite and Canaanite values. He proposes 'that in the future
we ought to perceive Israel's worldview as a transformation or reconfiguration of existing
values which already existed in the ancient world, but not as unique or in opposition to these
values'.404
In contrast to the general assessment by scholars, Zevit 405 states that traditions reflected in
biblical narratives, historiographic observations and archaeological data indicate 'that Iron
Age Israelites of the central mountains did not originate or derive from the preceding Late
Bronze population of the local Canaanite city-states and, therefore, were not traditionists bear-
ing and passing on some form of the antecedent, local Canaanite culture'. He furthermore de-
notes that 'the data do not support an inference that local Canaanites became Israelites'. 406
7.5 Masoretic Text narratives

It is reasonably apparent from discussions in this chapter that biblical narratives – in many
instances – are not consistent with results from archaeological discoveries, or from conclu-
sions drawn from literary, historical and archaeological research. Ramsey 407 corroborates this
assessment and denotes 'that the findings of archaeology do not provide clear and compelling
support for biblical stories … the evidence is exceedingly ambiguous in several ways'. In ad-
dition hereto, Dever 408 mentions that what archaeology 'has virtually forced upon all of us', is
profoundly different to the biblical chronicles of an exodus and conquest.
Despite the above assessment, ancient north-western Syrian toponyms suggest a connection
with proper names appearing in the patriarchal Abraham narrative in Genesis 11 – particularly
regarding the city and countryside of Haran [Harran], which was an important crossroad city
and is extremely well attested in the cuneiform record. Scholars agree that there is a correla-
tion between the site and the name Haran mentioned in the Abraham chronicle. There also
might be some connection with the personal name Haran – brother of Abraham – which ap-
pears in the biblical account. Similarly, the proper name Nahor – in Genesis 11 – might be
associated with the city name Nahur, which occurs frequently in the Old Babylonian Mari
texts.409
404
Gnuse 1991b:116.
405
Zevit 2001:113-114.
406
Zevit 2001:115.
407
Ramsey 1981:69.
408
Dever 1997a:45.
409
Frayne 2001:216, 224-225.
524
Janzen410 denotes that the patriarchal narratives 'portray the rise and the first stages of for-
mation of a new structure of actuality in the emergent community identified by the names of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. An important parallel between 2 Samuel 24 - 1 Kings 1, and
Genesis 23-24, concerning Abraham and king David, 411 is pointed out by Rudman. 412 He
indicates that historical writing often entails communication through a narrative in order for
the reader to draw appropriate theological, or other, lessons. Barton413 discusses the dating of
the "succession narrative" in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. There are lately severe doubts
about the date of this material, although earlier scholars regarded it as a source with many his-
torical names. In recent years this material has been dated later than the historical period it-
self. The Deuteronomist portrayed David as the ideal king; it is therefore inconceivable that
he would have included negative stories about him – particularly the Bathsheba episode.
Scholars thus deduce that the "succession narrative" was added later to the Deuteronomistic
History. Generally, many scholars lately estimate biblical narratives as stories, rather than
history.
The Book of Genesis is divided into sequential histories,414 and not into primeval history and
a history of the patriarchs. The arrangement of these narrations is important, as it seems to be
related to a final stage in the tradition. It is clear that the different cycles were later merged –
probably in the interest of national unity. The northern group of Israelites implemented the
cycles to establish their identity and their claim on the land. The history, or epic, of Judah in
Genesis 38, secured the royal line of David. The David-Zion tradition of Jerusalem was
therefore united with the patriarchal-exodus-Sinai traditions of the North. It thus seems that
the patriarchal cycles had preceded the Monarchy, and that David re-used them – with addi-
tions – 'in order to maintain his own line and to unite it with Israel'. 415
Despite the emergence of new sources of information on the Philistines, the Hebrew Bible
contributes the most extensive and diverse information on the Philistines – or the so-called
410
Janzen 1979:231.
411
2 Samuel 24 - 1 Kings 1 describes how king David – "old and advanced in years" – purchased a threshing
floor from Araunah. In Genesis Abraham – "old, well advanced in years" – bought a cave at Machpelah as a
burial site. Scholars often interpret this deed of Abraham as 'the first step in the fulfillment of the divine promis-
es made to him concerning Israel's possession of the land of Canaan', while David's purchase from a Jebusite – a
member of the last Canaanite people to be disposed – is the final fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham
(Rudman 2004:239).
412
Rudman 2004:239, 248-249.
413
Barton 2004:95.
414
The history of the patriarchs is divided into the accounts of Terah and Abraham (Gn 11:27-25:11); Ishmael
(Gn 25:12-18); Isaac (Gn 25:19-35:29); Esau (Gn 36:1-37:1) and Jacob (Gn 37:2-50:26) (Fisher 1973:61).
415
Fisher 1973:61, 64.
525
Sea Peoples. However, many scholars have had doubts to utilise Genesis as a source for po-
tential historical references to the Philistines. 416 Extra-biblical data indicate that the Philis-
tines in the Levant are dated only toward the end of the Late Bronze Age, or in the Iron Age I
– a period identified with the exodus and settlement in Palestine. There are thus problems to
locate the Philistines in the era of the patriarchs. 417
The biblical account of the conquest 418 is the primary source of information regarding the Is-
raelite occupation of Palestine. The biblical text, however, reflects certain internal inconsist-
encies. Critical literary analyses have revealed that the narrative is based on different ancient
traditions, which represent diverse literary genres, and which have been subjected to changes
during the transmission process.419 Ramsey420 mentions that 'the leading role played by Josh-
ua in the narratives of Joshua 1-12 was considered a fiction' by proponents of the "peaceful
entry" hypothesis. According to Dever, 421 the narratives describing the exodus and conquest
never happened the way the Hebrew Bible claims. The influence of archaeological data on
the reliability of the biblical account, or the rejection thereof, has been discussed in paragraph
7.4.
Although only a few examples of biblical narratives and their credibility have been referred to
in this paragraph, this is an indication of the complexity with regard to the historical value of
the Hebrew Bible.
7.6 Israelite Monarchy

Smith422 mentions that 'until relatively recently, a typical description of Israel's history would
essentially follow the outline of the Bible, supplemented by archaeological information and
texts outside the Bible'. Archaeology and extra-biblical texts were thus applied to comple-
ment the biblical narratives. Material in the books Joshua to Kings provided information for
an historical picture, and at the same time, 'the basis for delineating the periods of Israel's
past'.423 Scholars initially identified four different sources underlying the Pentateuch. 424 Alt-
hough some scholars still support the idea of four separate sources, most scholars now
416
See, for instance, Genesis 20-21, 26; with particular reference to Genesis 21:32, 34; 26:1, 17-18.
417
Machinist 2000:53-55.
418
Numbers 13 - Judges 1.
419
Miller 1977:213.
420
Ramsey 1981:79.
421
Dever 1997a:45.
422
Smith 2004:7.
423
Smith 2004:8.
424
See § 8.2 for a brief discussion of the different sources.
526
acknowledge associated editorial activity during the late Monarchy and the Exile. However,
to interpret the so-called historical books425 remains problematic. It is, furthermore, evident
that the Monarchical Period probably preserved narratives about Israel's identity rather than to
conserve a great deal of its history. Although the Hebrew Bible is not, as such, "being dis-
missed as historically worthless", it no longer holds a privileged position to reconstruct Is-
rael's past. Results procured from archaeological data have been subjected to many scholarly
debates, and often to different interpretations; the latter which are obviously influenced by the
archaeologists' presuppositions. 426
More abundant "historical-looking" material – biblical and extra-biblical – is available for the
time of Israel's Monarchy, than for the earlier period of its history. Apart from biblical collec-
tions, profuse documents and literature from contemporary Ancient Near Eastern nations had
been preserved, and have been excavated subsequently, supplementing biblical information.
The biblical history in Genesis could actually be the memoirs of a family, extending across
generations, to transmit an image of Israel's identity and its place within the world of monar-
chies. The extent of non-Israelites related to Israel is signified to various degrees. The books
of Samuel – that continue the chronicles of Judges – trace the intricate road from tribal leader-
ship to a monarchy. 427 'The Iron Age I cultures of the hill-country of Canaan are controversial
in [the] light of the problem of the origins of Israel.' 428 According to Zertal, 429 to analyse this
complex historical dilemma, objective criticism of the biblical narratives should be combined
with archaeological data. The question arises, who shared the hill country area and from
where did they originate. The territory of biblical Manasseh in the central hill country is the
largest among the tribal allotments.430 Archaeologists excavated the site of Mount Ebal,
which overlooks eastern Manasseh and parts of the Gilead. Results achieved from this survey
suggest that early Israelites had settled there, and, as stated by Zertal, 431 they were already
aware of their national identity in the twelfth century BC.
A tradition of a close bond between the Edomites and the Israelites may be reflected in the
monarchical period story of the twin brothers, Jacob and Esau, that also involved an important
cultural memory concerning the Edomites, Midianites, and other groups south of Judah. The
425
Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings.
426
Smith 2004:7-11, 13-14.
427
Smith 2004:28-30.
428
Zertal 1998:238.
429
Zertal 1998:238-239, 243, 248.
430
See Joshua 17:1-13.
431
Zertal 1998:248.
527
idea of friendly contacts between the Edomites and the Israelites during the pre-monarchical
and early-monarchical periods is portrayed in Deuteronomy 23:7. Further positive relations
appear rooted in the archaic level of Israelite poetry. 432
Many biblical works – such as 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings – contain monarchical period col-
lections. Extra-biblical material also provides information regarding this time in Israel's his-
tory – particularly from the beginning of the ninth century BC. During this term there was no
real change in the society of ancient Israel; family lineages remained the basis for community
organisation. The extended family was maintained as the basic social unit. 'The patriarchal
model of society prevailed, extending to the level of the royal household and its administra-
tion.'433 Until Saul was introduced as the first king of an Israelite Monarchy, 434 Samuel was
the focus in the first eight chapters of 1 Samuel. 435
Finkelstein436 mentions that, as a consequence of a wave of settlement in the highlands during

the Iron Age, territorial national states of the Iron Age II emerged. 'This was a revolutionary
development.'437 However, many characteristics of the Israelite and Judean monarchies had
its foundation in the long political history of the highlands in the third and second millennium
BC. According to the biblical description, the central highlands were occupied by the House
of Joseph in the North, and Judah – and associated tribes – in the South. At the end of the
eleventh century BC, external pressures and internal processes compelled the hill country
groups to unite, establishing one highlands state. Ramsey 438 speculates on the occurrence that
tribes of disparate origins and backgrounds settled in Canaan under different circumstances,
to develop eventually into the nation of Israel. According to Dever, 439 considerable archaeo-
logical evidence substantiates the premise that the Israelite Monarchy was a continuation of
the Proto-Israelites. He, furthermore, mentions that centralisation resulted in the transfor-
mation of the Israelite society. As a consequence of the onslaught of urbanisation and nation-
alisation, the economy and the society gradually became more diverse and specialised – and
eventually more segregated.440 Wittenberg441 agrees that the introduction of the
432
See Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; Habakkuk 3:3, as well as discussions in § 5.3.
433
Smith 2004:28.
434
1 Samuel 9.
435
Smith 2004:27-28.
435
1 Samuel 9.
436
Finkelstein 1998:361-362.
437
438
Ramsey 1981:88.
439
Dever 2003:201.
440
Dever 1998b:419.
441
528
Monarchy transformed the Israelite segmentary society into a centralised state 'with attendant
traumatic changes in all spheres of life'.
Steiner 442 denotes that, based on archaeological evidence, Jerusalem of the tenth and ninth
centuries BC, could be described as a small town with no more than two thousand inhabit-
ants.443 Significantly, no trace has been found of a settlement on the site of Jerusalem in the
latter part of the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age – there was no city on the par-
ticular site that could have been the Urusalim of the Amarna Letters. 444 Building started only
during the twelfth century BC; at that stage a fortification had been erected on top of the hill.
A new town was founded later – during the tenth or, more likely, the ninth century BC – with
impressive public buildings, but without a large residential area. It thus seems that this town
'functioned as a regional administrative centre or as the capital of a small, newly established
state', and, that it is 'unlikely that this Jerusalem was the capital of a large state, the capital of
the United Monarchy of biblical history'. 445 It probably acted as a 'politically dominant centre
of commerce and trade for the small agricultural settlements nearby'. 446 Based on the analysis
of archaeological data it seems that the seventh century BC Jerusalem 'became an urban cen-
tre of exceptional dimensions'. 447 According to Ofer,448 during the twelfth to mid-eleventh
century BC, Jebusites – probably of Anatolian origin – were settled in Jerusalem. He also re-
fers to the "Bronze Age kingdom of Jerusalem", and denotes that 'it is well attested that dur-
ing the Amarna period 449 Jerusalem had strong influence in the inner Shephelah, around Kei-
lah'. 450
Mazar451 indicates that the evaluation of tenth century BC Jerusalem as a city is a critical
question in the ongoing debate concerning the United Monarchy. Archaeologists – such as
Kathleen Kenyon and Yigal Shiloh – have affirmed that it could have been a sizeable city
442
Steiner 2001:283.
443
David, who took Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) – 'the stronghold of Zion' (2 Sm 5:7) – is dated 1011/10-971/70 BC
(Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196), thus the eleventh to tenth century BC.
444
The question arises about the identity of Melchizedek, king of Salem, who met Abram after the latter defeated
Chedorlaomer (Gn 14:17-20). According to Kitchen & Mitchell (1982:194), Abram/Abraham is dated ca 2000-
1825 BC. This period is classified as the Middle Bronze Age (Negev & Gibson 2001:556).
445
Steiner 2001:283.
446
Steiner 2001:280.
447
Steiner 2001:281.
448
Ofer 2001:26, 29.
449
The Amarna Period or Amarna Interlude is dated mainly during the reign of pharaoh Akhenaten (1350-1334
BC) (Clayton 1994:120, 123, 126).
450
Ofer 2001:29.
451
Mazar 2006:256, 267, 269.
529
during that time. Other scholars, however, have advanced a more negative view. 452 Disparate
evaluations have led to the conclusion that tenth century BC Jerusalem was a small town of
some importance, but could not have been the capital of a developed state. Biblical descrip-
tions of David and Solomon's state and all the building operations in Jerusalem were probably
imaginative and overemphasised historiographical accounts. Excavations indicate that tenth
century BC Jerusalem was spread over the entire hill of the City of David. 453 Lack of archae-
ological data for the Temple Mount area questions the historical validity of Solomon's build-
ing projects. However, although the biblical account might be exaggerated and unrealistic, it
probably retains some historical truth at its core. One should, notwithstanding, keep in mind
that this period was a formative time for the Israelite political entity, which was only starting
to take shape with Jerusalem at its centre.
Steiner 454 denotes that, since the latter part of the 1960s, Israeli archaeologists conducted sev-
eral large-scale excavations at Jerusalem, which indicated that, at the beginning of the Middle
Bronze Age, a town had been built on the south-east hill of Jerusalem. Only fragments of
houses of this town have survived. According to finds excavated at the site, Jerusalem could
be considered the centre of political, military, economic and religious power of the region,
although it was too small to exist on its own. As mentioned earlier in this paragraph – 7.6 –
no trace has been found of a fortified Late Bronze Age town; it thus seems inevitable that no
"city" existed in Jerusalem during the period of the Amarna Letters. These letters, however,
do refer to Urusalim and, consequently, various pieces of information should be reconciled.
There is also the possibility that the origin of the letters was not Jerusalem, or, alternatively,
that Urusalim – and not Jerusalem – is a real city; Urusalim could even have been the "estate"
or fortified house of the Egyptian king.
Philip Davies455 is of the opinion that it is not possible to reconstruct the "limits" of the Israel-
ite kingdom, or any sovereignty uniting the territories of Israel and Judah. This kingdom ex-
ists exclusively in the biblical literature. It, furthermore, seems unlikely that any association
existed originally between the settlers of Judah and those of Israel. Dever, 456 on the other
hand, argues that the idiom of the Deuteronomistic History – the principal biblical "historical"
452
Mazar (2006:256) denotes that the archaeologist David Ussishkin wrote in 1998 that 'during 150 years of re-
search no evidence was found for a settlement [in Jerusalem] dating to the United Monarchy … the archaeologi-
cal evidence clearly contradicts the biblical evidence'.
453
An area of approximately 4 hectares (Mazar 2006:267).
454
Steiner 1998:144, 146, 148-149.
455
Davies 1992:68-69.
456
Dever 2004:66-67, 76, 86.
530
source – comprises 'the actual language of the biblical writers'; it is 'genuinely archaic'. 457 He
refutes arguments by the "revisionists" who disclaim the existence of an historical king David,
or an historical United Monarchy. 458 Centralisation is regarded as the essential criterion to
define "statehood" – thus 'the emergence of centralized administrative institutions for deci-
sion-making and the distribution of goods and services'. 459 However, this does not necessarily
imply a state consisting of a relatively large territory or population. He concludes that, alt-
hough "hard evidence" towards an early Israelite statehood is not conclusive, it is not negligi-
ble either. Dever 460 also denotes that statehood in Palestine was achieved only ca 1000 BC
with the United Monarchy of Israel; there are, however, scholars who regard this "state"
merely as a "chiefdom". Jamieson-Drake461 indicates that there is little evidence that Judah
functioned as a full-scale state before the eighth century BC; the extent of production and
population of tenth century BC Judah was just too small, and it therefore seems more appro-
priate to refer to a chiefdom.
Gelinas462 supports scholars – such as T L Thompson – who propose that no kingdom of Isra-
el existed during the tenth century BC. A rapid transformation from a segmentary tribal soci-
ety to statehood under David and Solomon – as purported in the biblical text – should have
left some significant traces in the material remains of the archaeological record. Such evi-
dence is, however, scanty and at best fragmentary. There is hardly any testimony for the time
of Saul, and any archaeological finds that could corroborate the reign of David, is ambiguous.
It is significant that, according to the biblical account of the early monarchical period, the en-
tities Judah and Israel are depicted as decidedly having separate identities. Regarding the
reign of Solomon, Muhly463 discusses current theories and controversies concerning the prob-
ability of metal trade into the "Far West" – particularly Spain – and the historical reality of
Solomon, as well as the Ophir and Tarshish fleets of Solomon and Hiram of Tyre. Ezekiel
27:12 refers to silver, iron, tin and lead that came into Tyre from the land of Tarshish. 464
Muhly465 also summarises textual confirmation that trade between the eastern and western
Mediterranean could be traced back to at least the tenth century BC. He incorporates
457
Dever 2004:66-67.
458
See Dever (2004:65-86) for a discussion of the arguments by the revisionists concerning, inter alia, the ques-
tion of a United Monarchy, and the counter arguments by Dever.
459
Dever 2004:76.
460
Dever 2005:15.
461
Jamieson-Drake 1991:138-139.
462
Gelinas 1995:228, 231.
463
Muhly 1998:314-324.
464
See also 1 Kings 10:22; 22:48, mentioning maritime trade undertaken by Solomon, king of Israel, and Hiram,
king of Tyre, with Tarshish and the land of Ophir (Muhly 1998:315).
465
Muhly 1998:318-320.
531
scientific evidence, particularly provided by lead isotope466 analysis, ' a technique currently
creating the sort of contention long associated with the reign of Solomon'. 467
The Judean highlands comprise the southern area of the Palestinian central hill country. The
entire territory has a climatic marginal character.468 During Iron Age I pastoral elements,
which had always been present in the region, disappeared and the highlands became substan-
tially settled land. Archaeological finds from the Judean hills do not support a theory that
these settlers migrated into the area from the North; at the same time these data give no indi-
cation from where the new inhabitants came. Archaeologically there is thus no justification to
distinguish between the newcomers and the original inhabitants. This process probably start-
ed during the latter part of the thirteenth century BC, and may have lasted until the ninth cen-
tury BC. The Judean hill country is not mentioned in the narratives concerning the founding
of the Israelite Monarchy. The Philistines probably took control of this region following their
takeover of certain areas of the central hills. 469 The groups that settled in this part of the
country were of diverse origin and had disparate relations among themselves, as well as with
families throughout the entire southern and central territory in Palestine. No concrete evi-
dence of an organisation bearing the name "Judah" – apart from family ties – appears in early
sources concerning the establishment of the Davidic Monarchy; the name therefore indicates a
region wherein different families settled. 470
The divided Kingdom of Judah included the two different settlement areas of Judah and Ben-
jamin; their 'inhabitants belonged to small subtribal units on the one hand, and to the broader
Israelite nationality on the other hand'. 471 Jerusalem – as capital of the Monarchy – did not
belong to either of them. The Kingdom of Judah gradually formed its own identity. 'With the
destruction of the Northern Kingdom, Judah became the sole successor of the pan-Israelite
nationality.'472 Finkelstein473 mentions that, although the Hebrew Bible portrays Israel and
466
Spanish silver was not obtained from the usual source of silver in the ancient world, but from complex ores
known as jarosites – decomposition products of other ore minerals. In order to extract silver from these jarosites,
lead – that had to be imported – was added to absorb the silver. Thus, silver produced in Spain has a lead iso-
tope signature (Muhly 1998:317).
467
Muhly 1998:314.
468
The east and southern half of the region consist of steppe zones; springs can be found in the northern and cen-
tral parts; it has a southern desert fringe, as well as a southern mountainous block completely devoid of perennial
water sources (Ofer 1994:93).
469
1 Samuel 4:1-11.
470
Ofer 1994:92, 106, 108-109, 112, 117.
471
Ofer 1994:121.
472
Ofer 1994:121.
473
532
Judah as one demographic and cultural body, 474 this theological and ideological intention does
not fit the image depicted by archaeological data. Based on notable geographical differences
the central hill country was divided into two territorial-political entities. On the assumption
that the United Monarchy did exist, 'the unification of the central hill country in the 10th cen-
tury BCE was a short-lived exception in the history of the highlands, while the contrasting
circumstances and political systems of the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, better reflect the
deeper, pervasive, and long-term structures of Levantine regional history'. 475

As indicated earlier, and at the beginning of this chapter, I theorise that the Kenites and relat-
ed marginal groups – who were later mainly affiliated to the tribe of Judah – were primarily
involved in the spreading of the Yahwistic faith. In preceding paragraphs 476 of this chapter, I
briefly deliberate on the emergence and settlement of those tribes who, in the course of time,
established themselves as an Israelite nation and who, in all likelihood, included marginal
groups.
Revisionist scholars – such as Philip Davies477 – argue that biblical Israel not necessarily had
an historical existence; they question the origin of the biblical literature that produced the his-
tory of such an Israel. Dever 478 denotes that, although archaeological data cannot "prove" the
contents of the Hebrew Bible, there are, notwithstanding, certain datable Iron Age archaeolog-
ical witnesses that converge with literary references in the Masoretic Text. It is thus unlikely
that a post-exilic editor could have invented such narrative passages in the text. The applica-
tion of the results of material evidence to the questions regarding the origin of Israel, is, how-
ever, extremely complex. Yet, according to Davies, 479 revisionist scholars reached a consen-
sus 'that there was no patriarchal period, no Exodus and no conquest'. Biblical readers have
lately become 'alarmed by what they perceive as a concerted, hostile attack on the Bible',480
by a number of reputable biblical scholars as well as a few biblical archaeologists.
It is a problem to identify an Iron Age I site as a place occupied by early Israelites, as other
ethnic entities – particularly Canaanites, but also Philistines – were active in the same areas.
474
Both Israel and Judah worshipped Yahweh, shared the same narratives of a common past, spoke similar lan-
guages or dialects and wrote in the same script (Finkelstein 1999:48).
475
476
Particularly § 7.4 and § 7.6.
477
Davies 1992:16-18, 22, 46, 49.
478
Dever 1997b:301.
479
Davies 2000:117.
480
Dever 2003:2.
533
'The formation of the Israelite identity was a long, intricate, and complex process', 481 which
was probably completed only at the beginning of the Monarchy. The emergence of ancient
Israel proceeded simultaneously with an intricate process of socio-economic change in Pales-
tine. Archaeological data seem to suggest that the early Israelite peoples were a motley
group. Finkelstein482 deduces that the material culture from this particular period and region
is not sufficient to draw clear ethnic boundaries.
The conundrum of the transformation of a society of isolated tribes into a structured monar-
chy has been debated intermittently by scholars from viewpoints of the biblical narrative, his-
torical geography and archaeology. Analysis of genealogies reveals that six of the Israelite
tribes were not part of the original group of federated tribes. They only later became associat-
ed with, and accepted as part of Israel. Scholars maintain that Israel evolved mainly out of
local conditions; therefore, most Israelites had Canaanite ancestors. Archaeologists generally
agree that, should there be archaeological evidence for the emergence of Israel in Canaan,
such an occurrence should be dated at the beginning of the Iron Age, ca 1200 BC. However,
new increased archaeological data brought more questions than answers. Any attempt to
identify peoples in the archaeological record remains problematic.
The phenomenon of interaction among nations, and the influence of co-regional Ancient Near
Eastern nations on one another – and thus also on the entity "Israel" – is obvious in a number
of aspects.
It seems that "pure" cultures never existed in the Ancient Near East, but that hybrid cultures
were the norm. The Israelites probably lived in a kind of symbiosis with the Sea Peoples and
Canaanites. Inscriptions with Phoenician personal names have been found inland, demon-
strating that these people – as well as their culture – penetrated deep into the Israelite society.
An early connection of the Phoenicians with the interior is also evident in the adoption of the
Canaanite script by a number of other nations. As the Proto-Canaanite alphabet – which was
a Canaanite invention – developed, it was no longer called Proto-Canaanite, but Phoenician.
The alphabetical script evidently appeared widespread in the western areas of the Ancient
Near East – including Judah, Moab, Edom and the Philistines – indicating interaction among
various nations in these regions. The Philistines were seemingly also present in the Jordan
481
482
534
Valley; it is thus evident that they intermingled with different nations, and were found in terri-
tories other than their traditional coastal regions.
Various documents and epigraphic material demonstrate that a network of relations existed
among ports, harbours and cities along the Canaanite coast. Even though Palestine did not
have good natural harbours at its disposal, it played an important role in international ex-
change. Long-distance trade was dependent upon individuals and groups who took up resi-
dence elsewhere. Hittites exploited ports and overland trade routes that linked Anatolia with
the Levant, while Egyptian commerce capitalised on regions of the southern Levant and the
highlands. An Arabian trade diaspora connected Amorites in the most southern Levantine
coastal regions with, inter alia, South Arabia and India. Long-distance trade also involved
early "Israelite" settlers, who were present in northern Syria, regions of the Euphrates and the
southern Shephelah. Consequently, the various nations interacted with one another through
trade.
Salt, as an essential mineral – obtained in the Levant along the Mediterranean coast and along
the shores of the Dead Sea – was an important commodity for trading purposes. Likewise,
iron and copper ores, or manufactured articles, were employed in the trading business. East-
ern Anatolia was known for its rich iron ores; none of the ores was locally available in Meso-
potamia, with the result that trade routes developed and gateway cities progressed along these
routes. Similarly, Tyre was well known for its production of the greatly valued purple marine
dye. Due to its exceptional commercial importance, the dye was highly in demand – also in
the sense of tributes. Tolls collected from trade routes were significant for Palestine's econo-
my. Cuneiform records attest to important crossroads at the biblical city of Haran in the Balih
region; scholars generally accept that the latter could be linked to the patriarchal narrative of
Abraham.
Internal migrations among the so-called Israelite tribes did apparently happen. According to
genealogical lists, clans moved from one place to another and in this process realigned with
different tribes; they could also be related through descent or intermarriage. Small groups of
indigenous people probably joined large clans. The process of change was complex and rela-
tively slow, involving considerable assimilation, and entailing the overlapping of roots of both
Israelite and Canaanite societies. Tribal or ethnic groups were intricate organisations that
were composed of nomadic and sedentary elements. Scholars explain the cultural dependence
of the Israelite tribes on the Canaanites by proposing that close connections existed between
535
these two groups before the twelfth century BC. It, furthermore, seems that the Israelites did
not necessarily have their own differentiated identity, but that it was moulded by a dynamic
historical process.
During the Early Iron Age there was a profuse establishment of small settlements in the high-
lands. Some of the settlers were probably Israelites, or later became Israelites. These differ-
ent peoples came from diverse backgrounds; it is therefore reasonable to assume that they had
a significant influence on the later Israelite nation, particularly regarding religion and tradi-
tions. Various Ancient Near Eastern chronicles that are parallel to biblical narratives are rec-
orded in the Masoretic Text. Comparable evidence – regarding family religion – at various
sites indicates that the pattern of domestic and official cult rituals in Iron Age Israel and Judah
was not unique, as corresponding customs were widespread amongst neighbouring peoples.
Likewise, the origin, society and religion of the ancient Israelites were not necessarily differ-
ent from those of their neighbours.
The question of the origin of the Israelite nation, the historicity – or not – of the exodus, and
the manner of settlement of the Israelite tribes in Palestine, has been debated intermittently by
scholars for many decades. Several hypotheses have been advanced – particularly on the
emergence and settlement of the Israelites. No consensus has, as yet, been reached.
The patriarchal narratives portray the beginning of the formation of a new structure. A wealth
of material from Mari indicates that a special link existed between Mari and the Hebrew Bi-
ble; Israelite descendants of Abraham probably passed by Mari on their travels. The habiru,
who probably became Israelites – possibly for ideological reasons – appear in texts through-
out the Ancient Near East. Archival texts from the royal palace of Mari refer to them as out-
laws. There are indications that they were employed as mercenaries during the Old Babyloni-
an Period,483 but, as a social and political force, disappeared before the end of the second mil-
lennium BC. Scholars have disparate opinions whether the habiru should be equated with the
Hebrews, or not. A wave of fugitives probably left their own countries during the Late
Bronze Age to find ways of survival elsewhere. The numerous small states and uncontrolla-
ble territories and territorial borders were suitable for the lives of brigands. De Moor 484 is of
the opinion that the habiru resembled the Shasu, who were linked to Edom and Seir in south-
ern Palestine – and thus to those tribes who, according to the Kenite hypothesis, venerated
483
The Old Babylonian Period is dated 2000-1595 BC (Arnold 1994:47).
484
De Moor 1997:117, 120.
536
Yahweh. Archaeological evidence points to a population surge in the hill country in Iron
Age I. Although these settlers emerged predominantly from Canaanite society, the hill coun-
try colonists were composed also of different other groups; the habiru probably would have
been among them.
Several hamlets and villages have been identified in the central highlands, Judean hills, Negeb
and the Galilee. These clearly represented small-scale farmers and herders. Early clashes be-
tween the Israelites and Canaanites in the Galilee and Jezreel Valley are recounted in the He-
brew Bible. Events mentioned in the Amarna Letters485 possibly relate to the early history of
the Galilean tribes, particularly with regard to activities associated with the habiru.486 It is
unlikely that groups living in the Galilee could be described as "Israelites". Authors of the
Hebrew Bible obviously depicted the conquest of Canaan by unified "Israelite" tribes to legit-
imise the territorial acquisition in the time of the Monarchy.
The biblical chronicle of the Israelites that recounts dramatically how their nation established
themselves in Canaan, commences with the exodus from Egypt. This national epic is narrated
in the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History. The historical trustworthiness of these
narratives is questioned. Countless references in the Hebrew Bible, however, support the ex-
odus tradition, despite archaeological data signifying a Canaanite origin for the Israelites.
Scholars, furthermore, indicate that – according to an analysis of the genealogies of those
tribes associated with the exodus events – at least six of the Israelite tribes were not involved.
Scholars connect a possible Egyptian sojourn of some Israelite tribes with the Hyksos reign in
Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period. 487 It is more likely that a non-Egyptian – such
as Joseph – could have risen to prominence under the Hyksos rule; they were Semitic-
speaking people from the Levant who infiltrated Egypt. Based on archaeological and histori-
cal evidence, most scholars support a date for an exodus during the thirteenth century BC. 488
Scholars such as Graham Davies 489 and Malamat,490 contend that some elements and particu-
lar Egyptian sources might indirectly afford credibility to an "Egypt" and an "exodus" tradi-
tion. Malamat,491 however, emphasises that, despite possible analogous Egyptian material,
'none of the Egyptian sources substantiates the story of the Exodus', and scholars therefore
485
See § 2.5 for information on these letters.
486
See discussions on the habiru in § 2.4, § 2.5, § 2.6, § 4.3.3 and § 4.3.7.
487
Dated 1782-1570 BC.
488
Probable dates of ca 1290 BC, as well as 1250 BC, have been suggested.
489
Davies 2004:28-36.
490
Malamat 1997:17-25.
491
Malamat 1997:15.
537
face the dilemma that the chronicle, which is mainly of a theological nature, might be 'merely
the product of later contemplation'. 492
Archaeological research in Egypt and Palestine has not revealed anything that can be directly
linked to the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt or a large-scale migration by them from Egypt.
Weinstein493 is of the opinion that 'if such an event did take place, the number of people in-
volved was so small that no trace is likely to be identified in the archaeological record'.
Kadesh-barnea is one of the few sites listed in the biblical narrative of the wandering of the
Israelites in the Wilderness that has been identified. Although the Israelites are said to have
sojourned there for more or less thirty-eight years, not a single artefact from the time frame of
the exodus – the thirteenth to twelfth century BC – has been recovered from this site. During
the Monarchy it probably became associated with the biblical tradition.
The scheme of the twelve tribes of Israel occupies a central position in the Hebrew Bible, par-
ticularly in biblical historiography. Scholars have suggested that an early Israelite amphicty-
ony had existed, which could have been instrumental in the formation of a tribal league. The
pre-eminence of the tribe of Judah is obvious in its prime position to the Tabernacle; 494 the
tribe's relation to the priesthood and Temple is thus emphasised. Points of contact between
the genealogical representation of the tribal interrelationships and the geographical distribu-
tion of the tribes substantiate the suggestion that all schemes stem from one formalised struc-
ture; literary formulations were thus applied in these systems to reflect a particular emphasis.
Biblical writers and editors interpreted events, never claiming that the ancient literature was
historical. It was probably only the "house of Joseph" – the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh
– who had been in Egypt; they told the story, and, as a matter of course, eventually included
all those who considered themselves part of biblical Israel. Eventually, most "Israelites" ob-
viously believed that they had been in Egypt.
The Book of Joshua continues with the story line that started in the Book of Exodus. It de-
scribes how Israel became settled in the land – Canaan – that Yahweh gave to them. Yadin495
mentions that, according to archaeological evidence, many fortified Canaanite cities were de-
stroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age. The biblical narrative relates how nomadic Israel-
ites ravaged Canaanite cities and set them on fire. As there was a marked decline in political
492
Malamat 1997:15.
493
Weinstein 1997:97-98.
494
Numbers 2:2-3.
495
Yadin 1982:18-19, 21.
538
and economic stability in Canaan during that period, it is not surprising that semi-nomadic
tribes were able to conquer fortified cities. Although the biblical narrative explains events
theologically, the ancient conquest tradition reflects military strategy, and an intimate and au-
thentic knowledge of the topography and demography of the land. Yet, it is difficult to ex-
plain how semi-nomadic Israelite tribes could successfully conquer fortified Canaanite cities
that had a formidable chariotry, as well as well-trained forces familiar with superior technolo-
gy.
The principal entry into Canaan from the Transjordan probably occurred at a site opposite
Shechem, and not opposite Jericho, as stated in Joshua. 496 Excavations at the site of ancient
Jericho indicate – apart from an Early Bronze Age town – a settlement dated 1400-1325 BC;
the earliest date for inhabitants thereafter was from the eleventh to tenth century BC. It there-
fore seems that there was no significant habitation at Jericho during the period of the narrated
biblical conquest of the city. After the "fall of Jericho", the city Ai was attacked – according
to the biblical description. Extensive excavations revealed that Ai – as Jericho – was deserted
much earlier than the date attributed to the conquest. Some scholars regard the battle of Jeri-
cho as mainly liturgical, while the story of Ai is entirely aetiological. Joshua 10:31 relates
that Joshua and his men laid siege to Lachish and fought against it. Excavations at the site of
ancient Lachish revealed that this large and prosperous Canaanite city was demolished by fire,
sometime around 1150 BC. Archaeological evidence also indicates that Canaanite Hazor was
ravaged in the thirteenth century BC – data, which is, therefore, inconsistent with the biblical
account of a swift campaign in Canaan by Joshua's forces; excavations thus indicate that
Lachish and Hazor were destroyed about a century apart. In contrast to the Book of Joshua
that describes the land invasion as a "lightning military campaign", during which the whole
country is overpowered in a relatively short time, the Book of Judges relates the conquering
of the land as a gradual and incomplete process.
Since the early years of the twentieth century, scholars have proposed various models to in-
terpret and clarify the so-called settlement process of those tribes who later called themselves
the Israelite nation. No consensus has, as yet, been reached. For many decades three differ-
ent hypotheses have been advanced to explain the settlement process of the Israelites, namely
peaceful infiltration, violent conquest, or social revolution. As from the 1980s, scholars –
who then had new conceptions – advanced several variations on these traditional models.
496
Joshua 3:16.
539
Initially, as early as the 1920s, Albrecht Alt postulated that the Israelites had infiltrated gradu-
ally from the Transjordan into the Cisjordan. This model suggests that the process took place
in two stages. Firstly, pastoral nomads had repeatedly entered the land, settled down and took
up agriculture. In the second stage, their increased numbers came in conflict with the Canaan-
ites; these encounters eventually stimulated the development of the Joshua and Judges chroni-
cles. Martin North formulated the Israelite amphictyony theory to explain how tribes of vari-
ous origins 'became united in the worship of Yahweh and eventually developed into the nation
of Israel', 497 which is described as a community of twelve tribes. American and Israeli ar-
chaeologists – led by William Albright – challenged the German theories and suggested that a
systematic, unified, military conquest took place, as described in the Book of Joshua. These
scholars denote that archaeological surveys at sites of key Canaanite cities, as well as in the
Transjordan, support the description of a violent invasion by the Israelites, while other schol-
ars point out conflicting evidence at several important sites. The third model – advanced by
the American School – developed during the 1960s and 1970s. George Mendenhall formally
constructed the social revolutionary theory, which was later developed, particularly by Nor-
man Gottwald. This model proposes that impoverished Canaanites, oppressed by Egyptian
taxation and the burden of a political city-state system, revolted; they burned the cities and
fled to the highlands. These rebels included peasants from the cities and habiru who were
already in the highlands. Mendenhall believed that a group of Yahweh worshippers from
Egypt were the source of the revolt.
All three models have been criticised by scholars. The main objection against the "peaceful
infiltration model" is the proponents' inability to exhibit that Israel emanated from outside Is-
rael. This model, likewise, discredits the conquest chronicles on the presumption that they
were created to function as aetiologies. The possibility that Canaanite cities were ravaged by
either Egyptians or the Sea Peoples, challenges the "violent conquest model". Incomprehen-
sibly, the Israelites also did not settle in their so-called "conquered" regions, but established
themselves in areas removed from these cities. Excavations at, inter alia, Jericho and Ai, in-
dicate that these places were uninhabited during the supposed Israelite invasion of the land
and subsequent demolishing of these cities. The downward trend of the Canaanite cities
stretched from at least 1200 BC to 1150 BC and was, therefore, not a rapid event – as implied
in the Book of Joshua. The "social revolution hypothesis" 'has drawn the most extensive
497
Ramsey 1981:88.
540
response'.498 Proponents of this model tend to impose modern ideologies particularly Marx-
ist – upon the ancient Israelites. These scholars are criticised for their lack of knowledge con-
cerning, inter alia, tribal structures and nomads, background in biblical studies, prevailing ar-
chaeological data and the question of the habiru.
In the introduction to his comprehensive and classic The Tribes of Yahweh, Gottwald499 de-
notes that, according to Exodus 1-24, 'a religious revolt and a social revolt clearly go hand in
hand'. He suggests that the Canaanites who revolted against their overlords joined forces with
the invaders from the desert. He is, however, of the opinion that a mass exodus and conquest
was unlikely. Gottwald – who is recognised as a Marxist – devoted this major work to the
reconstruction of the new society and ideology of early Israel.
The three different theories or models provide the foundation to consider a new model con-
cerning the establishment of an Israelite nation. Volkmar Fritz suggests a "symbiosis hypoth-
esis" in the light of the cultural dependence on and adoption of the Canaanite culture by the
Israelite tribes; this could have been possible only by the supposition that close relations ex-
isted between these two groups before the twelfth century BC. The process of change, which
was relatively slow and complex, involved a great deal of assimilation. Scholars have also
proposed several variations on, what might be called, the "peaceful withdrawal model". As
no satisfactory distinction can be drawn between the Israelites and Canaanites in the early pe-
riod of settlement, this was probably a peaceful internal process, combining Alt's perception
and the internal origin of the "social revolution" theory. Gnuse 500 proposes 'that the Israelites
were really Canaanites who quietly left their cities and moved to the highlands where they
gradually evolved into Israelites'. Although the Israelites – who also comprised families who
had been nomads or habiru who settled down – were ethnically different from the Canaanites,
they interacted culturally and therefore achieved similarity in material culture.
A few examples of biblical narratives and their credibility indicate the complexity of the his-
torical value of the Hebrew Bible. It is apparent – in many instances – that biblical chronicles
are not consistent with results from archaeological discoveries, or from conclusions drawn
from literary, historical and archaeological research. Findings of archaeology, therefore, 'do
not provide clear and compelling support for biblical stories'. 501 Lately, many scholars assess
498
Gnuse 1991a:58.
499
Gottwald 1979:xxi.
500
Gnuse 1991a:60.
501
Ramsey 1981:69.
541
biblical narratives as stories, rather than history. Until relatively recently, Israel's history was
described following the outline of biblical narratives, supplemented by archaeological infor-
mation and extra-biblical texts. Scholars now acknowledge associated editorial activity dur-
ing the late Monarchy and the Exile; the Monarchical Period probably preserved narratives
about Israel's identity rather than to conserve a great deal of its history. To interpret the so-
called historical books therefore remains problematic.
During the ninth century BC there was no real change in the society of ancient Israel; family
lineages remained the basis for community organisation. Many characteristics of the Israelite
and Judean monarchies had its foundation in the long political history of the highlands in the
third and second millennium BC. According to the biblical description, the central highlands
were occupied by the "house of Joseph" in the North, and Judah – and associated tribes – in
the South. Dever502 argues that considerable archaeological data substantiate the premise that
the Israelite Monarchy was a continuation of the Proto-Israelites.
Based on archaeological evidence, scholars generally conclude that tenth century BC Jerusa-
lem was a small town of some importance, but that it could not have been the capital of a de-
veloped state. Probably during the ninth century BC a new town was founded that seemingly
functioned as a regional administrative centre. Archaeological data indicate that the seventh
century BC Jerusalem 'became an urban centre of exceptional dimensions'. 503 The evaluation
of tenth century BC Jerusalem as a city is a critical question in the ongoing debate concerning
the United Monarchy. Biblical descriptions of David and Solomon's state and all the building
operations in Jerusalem were probably imaginative and overemphasised historiographical ac-
counts. The Urusalim referred to in the Amarna Letters could thus not have been the city Je-
rusalem; there is the possibility that Urusalim was another city, or the estate or fortified house
of the Egyptian king.
Scholars have disparate views concerning an Israelite United Monarchy, or the statehood of
Israel and Judah. On the one hand, revisionists refute the existence of a sovereignty uniting
the territories of Israel and Judah – indicating that this kingdom exists exclusively in the bib-
lical literature – while, on the other hand, other scholars purport that, although "hard evi-
dence" towards an early Israelite statehood is not conclusive, it is not negligible either. There
are, however, scholars who regard this "state" merely as a "chiefdom"; the tenth century BC
502
Dever 2003:201.
503
Steiner 2001:281.
542
kingdom of Judah was just too small to be referred to otherwise than a chiefdom. Judah grad-
ually formed its own identity.
Considering the preceding discussions in this chapter, it is hardly possible to ascertain to what
extent and at which stage, southern marginal groups – such as Kenites, Jerahmeelites, and
others – had contact with, and merged with tribes that later comprised the Israelite nation.
According to genealogical lists, they are associated with particularly the tribe of Judah. The
habiru – linked to the Shasu, who are connected to the southern regions and thus to the mar-
ginal groups – probably formed part of the early Israelites. It could therefore be deduced ei-
ther that these marginal clans and tribes were assimilated into the tribe of Judah, or that they –
as habiru, or groups migrating into the land of Canaan – eventually merged with "Israelite"
tribes.
The following chapter concluding the research pertaining to this thesis briefly deals with
the literary material available concerning the Israelite nation, as reflected in the Masoretic
Text, as well as the establishment of an exilic Yahweh-alone monotheistic Judaic movement.
543
CHAPTER 8
ORIGIN OF THE MASORETIC TEXT AND MONOTHEISM:

SYNOPTIC SURVEY
8.1 Introduction
In the foregoing chapters of this thesis 1 I endeavour – by means of my research – to illustrate
that the different disciplines of biblical scholarship and archaeology are interdependent. The
Hebrew Bible, being in many instances biased, is not historically dependable; at the same
time 'archaeological artifacts, although not subject to editing in the same way as the texts, do
not easily reveal their meaning'. 2 A long oral tradition preceded the later written and edited
Masoretic Text, which was compiled within the framework of the background and precon-
ceived ideas of the authors and redactors. The Hebrew Bible in itself is therefore not an ade-
quate source to reconstruct 'a reliable portrait of Israelite religions as they actually were'. 3
Dever4 indicates that in ancient Israel there was, seemingly, a "multiplicity" of religions,
namely folk religion, as well as state or book religion. Biblical scholars generally pay little
attention to the "real life" context considered essential by archaeologists. Biblical texts
should therefore also be discussed in relation to their Ancient Near Eastern environment and
frame of reference. Women, as well as other marginalised and disenfranchised groups, have
become "invisible", except for the archaeological record. Similarly, iconography, or symbols,
is 'more evocative of the past than are texts'. 5 Biblical scholars, however, tend to neglect ar-
chaeology, not realising its revolutionary potential. It is thus clear that neither biblical histo-
riography nor theology can reach the full scope of its research without the support of relevant
disciplines. However, the Hebrew Bible remains the prime source of information concerning
the Israelite nation and its religion, and therefore it seems appropriate to conclude this re-
search with a brief discussion of matters pertaining to the compilation and finalisation of the
Masoretic Text.
I am knowledgeable about the book Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, by
Karel van der Toorn, which was published in 2007 and recently reviewed by Frank Polak and
Richard Weis. Unfortunately, I have not been able to study this publication fully at this late
stage, and therefore I have not incorporated it in this chapter.
1
Chapters 2-7.
2
Dever 2005:xi.
3
Dever 2005:32.
4
Dever 2005:xv, 5, 7, 29, 32, 43, 48, 54, 59, 62.
5
Dever 2005:54.
544
Van Seters6 endorses a definition of "history writing" by the Dutch historian, J Huizinga,
namely that 'history is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of
its past', 7 as a well-suited guideline concerning historiography. He indicates that historio-
graphic material in the Hebrew Bible – as for the rest of the Ancient Near East – is based up-
on contemporary information or data from relatively limited origins. Histories in the Maso-
retic Text are compiled from a variety of written and oral sources. A genre of Egyptian litera-
ture, namely the historical novel, had a significant influence on Israelite history writing. Sim-
ilarly, some scholars argue that literary texts of ancient Ugarit – that are in essence mytholog-
ical or legendary matter – had influenced later Hebrew texts, while other scholars contend that
little else, but Ugaritic poetic narrative texts, could be classified according to an historio-
graphic genre. Terminology regarding Israelite historiography is ambiguous and confusing as
the same terms are administered in different ways. Historical and chronological genres have
been applied in the writing of Israel's history, although the history did not evolve directly out
of these genres. Narratives, combined with chronology, portray political events and create the
potential for the "historical" reconstruction of the past. Van Seters 8 regards the Deuterono-
mist as the first Israelite historian, 'and the first known historian in Western civilization truly
to deserve this designation'.
In his research on Babylonian and some biblical chronicles, Dijkstra 9 reaches the conclusion
that, although the Babylonian and biblical narrators hardly qualify as historians in the modern
sense, they were – within the confines of the Ancient Near Eastern civilisation – 'certainly his-
torians in their own right'. They were, nonetheless, ideologically biased in the application of
their traditions and sources, and wrote from a specific theological viewpoint. Biblical histori-
ography shares many elements of the Ancient Near Eastern belief system, such as a vision of
the past as a sequence of good and bad spells and, particularly, the idea of divine intervention.
Historical memory everywhere adjusts reality to serve the present. Dijkstra 10 contends 'that a
contextual approach from the cultures and literature of the ancient Near East provides our best
"controlled comparison" for the development of historiography in Israel and the Old Testa-
ment'. There is thus no historical reason to set the Hebrew Bible against a Hellenistic
6
Van Seters 1983:1, 40, 60, 199-200, 207, 356-357.
7
Van Seters 1983:1.
8
9
Dijkstra 2005:39.
10
Dijkstra 2005:39.
545
historiographic background.11 Biblical writers probably borrowed familiar mythological mo-
tifs, transformed and incorporated them into an original story of their own. 12
Although it is commonly accepted in contemporary biblical scholarship that early collections

had existed of narrative, legal, prophetic, wisdom and cultic matter that were transmitted oral-
ly, and later composed in the literature known as the Masoretic Text, scholars differ as to the
extent of such transmissions. Narratives and some other issues were probably communicated
within the family and tribal circles. Wisdom sayings on the other hand, might have circulated
orally in certain strata of Israelite society, as well as in the circle of the sage. Characteristical-
ly biblical tradition was transmitted from one generation to the next. Although a core tradi-
tion – thus not merely a theme or set of motifs – that functioned orally, could possibly now be
reconstructed hypothetically by biblical scholars, it seems unlikely that the analyst would be
able to recover the form of such a tradition from the surviving literature. In contrast to early
customs and lore that were adapted to later developments, the early core of Israelite tradition
'already contains the most striking element of early Israelite religion', 13 namely Yahweh's con-
cern for the oppressed.14
'Israelite tradition did not develop in an isolated vacuum', 15 but factors from outside Israel ob-
viously contributed to the moulding of this tradition. 16 Smend17 denotes that the main task of
an historian is 'to extract history out of tradition'. However, the contents of the Hebrew Bible
is not an adequate historical source, but one must keep in mind that Israelite narrative is not
actually interested in historical events, but rather in the activity of God in history. 18 Biblical
scholars generally agree that the main purpose of the cult was to actualise the tradition. 19 Ac-
cording to Beyerlin, 20 the Sinai tradition – if it had its Sitz im Leben in the history of the tribal
confederacy of Israel – would have been linked with its cult in a special way. The growth of
11
Dijkstra 2005:18, 39. Minimalists contend that the Hebrew Bible was composed during the Persian and Hel-
lenistic periods.
12
Wenham 1987:53.
13
Harrelson 1977:25.
14
Harrelson 1977:11, 13-15, 18, 25, 29.
15
Ringgren 1977:31.
16
Ringgren 1977:31, 34-35, 45. Examples of the impact of the Ancient Near East on the development of the
Israelite tradition, are the Joseph narrative in Genesis – that has a distinct Egyptian bearing – and the flood story,
which marks a decisive moment in the Yahwistic presentation of history; scholars currently have access to three
parallels in the Mesopotamian literature regarding the Flood (Ringgren 1977:34-35).
17
Smend 1977:51.
18
Smend 1977:51, 54-55.
19
Childs 1962b:75.
20
Beyerlin 1965:167, 169.
546
this tradition was, furthermore, determined by its cultic affiliations, which lasted into the Mo-
narchical Period. However, tradition did not have its origin in the cult.
The question of the typological status of biblical narratives is a problem that confronts biblical
scholars; are these stories related typologically to literature of other cultures? Much has been
said about the difficulties concerning an oral tradition being transmitted into a written tradi-
tion, and the development of such a tradition. Scholars distinguish between "learned" oral
literature – communicated by professionals, who had created and preserved, inter alia, laws
and rituals – and "folk" oral literature, such as legends, lyrics and proverbs. Scholars also de-
bate the question of epic poetry – or not – in biblical literature.21 The power of writing was
highly respected. Literacy was initially restricted to the professional scribes, but with the de-
velopment of the alphabet literacy spread to wider segments of the population. According to
Niditch,22 some scholars assume that, in general, the Israelites were literate.
In contrast to the suggestion by Niditch23 – above – Horsley24 is of the opinion 'that literacy
was limited basically to circles of scribes', and that Israelites as a rule were not literate. He,
furthermore, mentions that literature, which arose from historical circumstances, also ad-
dressed those situations; ancient Judean texts are virtually the only sources available to recon-
struct such historical events. In his analysis of wisdom and apocalyptic material he indicates
that Ben Sira25 regarded scribes and sages to be of higher social standing than farmers and
artisans. The principal role of scribes was to serve the rulers. Rival factions among the aris-
tocracy complicated relations between sages or scribes and the rulers in whose service they
were.26 Frick27 indicates that people had asked questions about their relationship to the land
where they lived, to the ethnic group with which they identified, and to the religious myths
and rituals that were fundamental to their sense of identity. Therefore he conceives the pur-
pose of biblical narratives to answer these questions, and not to "present facts". Biblical
scholars have become aware of the reality that history is a social construct. The writers and
editors of the biblical text, however, represented 'the concerns of a small male literate elite' 28 –
who delineated the interests of those in power – and hardly expressed the concerns of the gen-
eral society.
21
Jason 1995:280-281, 283. See Jason (1995:282-283) for a definition and discussion of oral folk epic.
22
Niditch 1996:39, 58.
23
See Niditch 1996:39.
24
Horsley 2005:124.
25
See footnote on Ben Sira in § 3.8.3.
26
Horsley 2005:123, 125, 127, 132-133.
27
Frick 1999:245.
28
Frick 1999:245.
547
Historiography is always interpretation. Past events are described and interpreted from a dis-
tinct point of view, leading to an ongoing reinterpretation of history. This, furthermore, re-
sults in an historical ideology for a specific nation or group, reflecting a history from which
they emerged, which differs from the reality. The text recreates the history of a nation to pre-
sent a message in a new time. 29 Any assessment of the historicity of certain biblical accounts
should keep in mind that the origin of the particular material, as well as the aims of its co m-
pilers and editors, determined the outcome of the text.30 There are thus limitations to all his-
torical reports. According to Dever, 31 more attention should be paid to the role ideology
played in history writing. Smith32 advances 'that the academic study of collective memory
offers important intellectual help for understanding the biblical representations of Israel's
past'. Scholars should take cognisance thereof that the Hebrew Bible is not a record of events,
but incorporates different witnesses to various occurrences, of which a large number have a
religious character. Researchers should also negotiate between Israel's collective memories of
its past, and 'the historical contexts that gave rise to those memories'. 33 Scholars underesti-
mate the importance of the fact that the literary tradition in the Hebrew Bible is not only later
than the actual events, but also belongs to the aristocracy. 34 'Literature is not life, but rather
the product of the intellectual and literary imagination of a creative few.' 35
'The intention of the historian … , is to communicate an analysis of the course of events.' 36

Although not intended, the audience might have taken this communication literally. The
modern Bible reader should endeavour to get back into the minds of the chronicler's listeners
or readers who shared his assumptions, and could therefore be persuaded by his logic. An
example is the report of particular miracles; the further removed from events, the greater the
tolerance for miracles.37
Sasson38 distinguishes two biographical forms that convey biblical history, namely the melo-
dramatic and the cumulative, or episodic, modes. Each scene in the episodic biography
29
Van Rooy 1994:163-166.
30
Bartlett 1989:91. An example is narratives recording Israel's contact with Edom in the Wilderness. These
chronicles – see, for instance, Numbers 20:14-21 – have important theological and political overtones; they are
told as political and theological propaganda, furnishing no information on the land of Edom (Bartlett 1989:93).
31
Dever 1997b:291.
32
Smith 2004:125.
33
Smith 2004:126.
34
Dever 1988:346.
35
Dever 1997b:292.
36
Halpern 1988:275.
37
Halpern 1988:275-276.
38
Sasson 1984:306-308.
548
contains a narrative which is complete in itself. The various scenes present different manifes-
tations of the character, the hero – whose sum total of virtues and failings emerges from these
narratives. Little attention was paid to the birth or death of the hero, as his character could
best be captured during his maturity. The melodramatic biography is also based on the se-
quencing of scenes, but, unlike the episodic in which the activities of the hero could easily be
idealised, the melodramatic explores the inner world of the character. According to Menden-
hall, 39 scholars concentrate on small detail concerning the Abraham narratives, and thereby
obscure an important historical problem regarding the purpose and nature of these chronicles
in the Israelite cultural history. The history of the patriarchal narratives is intimately attached
to the Israelite history and its changing religious ideologies. Mendenhall 40 suggests, as a
working hypothesis, 'that the Abraham traditions are inseparately tied up with the historical
and social (as well as political and ideological) process that resulted in the disintegration of
the old tribal federation and the rise of the temporary empire', and is of the opinion that 'many
features of the patriarchal tradition (will then) fall neatly into place'. Abraham is distin-
guished as the "common ancestor", he is linked to the "gift of the land" and to the "covenant"
– the latter, which might have had a direct connection with the Davidic covenant. It seems
that the entire Abraham tradition was transmitted through a variety of sources, from the time
of the Middle Bronze Age. It is thus clear that all the main elements of the Abraham narrative
functioned to legitimise the Monarchy. By the time of the Exile these stories were firmly in-
grained as part of the total tradition. 41
Fenton42 is of the opinion that, by a comparative examination of the earliest biblical poetic
structures in the Hebrew Bible, the antiquity of biblical Hebrew literature – as well as histori-
cal references therein – might be found. In his comparison of this literature with ancient Ca-
naanite models, he established that the time span of the biblical Hebrew literature tradition
extended from at least the eleventh century BC to the Persian Period. Dever 43 indicates that
biblical scholars acknowledge that 'the books of the Hebrew Bible were written long after the
events that they purport to describe', and that the Masoretic Text was compiled by writers and
editors in an 'exceedingly complex literary process that stretched over a thousand years'. The
latest findings and techniques concerning linguistics, form criticism, archaeology and com-
parative religion, assist scholars to re-evaluate the data of the biblical period.44
39
40
41
Mendenhall 1987:340, 343, 347-348, 354-355.
42
Fenton 2004:386, 408.
43
Dever 2003:1.
44
Cohen 1965:59.
549
Long45 denotes that scientific experiments should be repeated by various scientists before any
results could be considered confirmed. In this regard he refers to an exercise carried out by
Lester Grabbe, wherein the latter compares historical assertions in the Hebrew Bible with par-
allel attestations from Ancient Near Eastern texts. Grabbe reached specific generalisations,
inter alia, 'that the details of the biblical accounts are at times misleading, inaccurate, or even
invented'. 46 Long47 repeated the comparative experiment with the result that he reversed this
particular verdict 48 of Grabbe. He therefore questions the occurrence that scholars, working
with the same evidence, at times reach totally different conclusions.
With regard to inconsistencies and contradictions in biblical narratives, 49 Revell50 poses the
question whether modern scholars fail to understand words in the same way as the audience –
for whom the text was produced – would have done. Synonyms were probably deliberately
chosen for the specific value of each word. Silver 51 mentions that many rabbinic legends de-
veloped to account for anomalies in the biblical text. Davies 52 indicates that, as vague as the
name "Israel" is, are the terms "circles", "schools" and "tradition". Similarly, social systems
cannot easily be conjectured from texts, therefore scholars should adopt an external standard
of reference. If scholars, thus, have identified the society that had been responsible for the
biblical literature, the question might be asked 'who, within that society, could write, or read,
and why anyone would write this sort of stuff that we find in the Bible'. 53 According to
Grabbe, 54 'the importance of the Persian period for Jewish history has been widely recog-
nized', although the extent to which this history reflects the propaganda of the sources, has
generally not been acknowledged.
Roots of Western historiography are anchored in the cultures of Israel and Greece. The first
discussions of Israelite and Judean history date from the Hellenistic Age, 55 as products from
both Jewish and non-Jewish authors. In this regard the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus 56
45
Long 2002:384.
46
Long 2002:384.
47
See Long (2002:368-382) for a comparative experiment between portrayals in biblical texts and analogous
Ancient Near Eastern texts.
48
'That the details of the biblical accounts are at times misleading, inaccurate, or even invented' (Long
2002:384).
49
For example, in Genesis 37 the traders, who carried Joseph to Egypt, are called Midianites in one instance and
Ishmaelites in another verse. For an explanation of this discrepancy, see Revell (2001:70).
50
Revell 2001:71.
51
Silver 1974:311.
52
Davies 1994c:28-29.
53
Davies 1994c:29.
54
Grabbe 2006:400.
55
The Hellenistic Age dates from 332-37 BC (Negev & Gibson 2001:556).
56
See footnote in § 3.5 for information on Josephus.
550
played an important role. Practically all historical works during the Middle Ages could char-
acteristically be called "history without historical perspective". Medieval writers could not
distinguish development in temporal history. The primary concerns of Medieval Jewish his-
toriography centred upon philosophical-ethical matters. Foundations of modern historiog-
raphy were laid in the Renaissance; an historical sensibility began to develop. Literary crit i-
cism was applied to various documents, either to prove that the documents were not authentic,
or to elucidate their origin and history. The Hebrew Bible, as the Word of God, however, was
exempted from such an examination. The intellectual climate of the seventeenth century had
a particular impact on biblical historiography: a growing literary-critical approach to the Mas-
oretic Text, the application of "new sciences" to defend a literal interpretation of biblical nar-
ratives, and the desire to produce a biblical chronology. A new biblical criticism subsequent-
ly developed subjecting the Hebrew Bible to critical study and acknowledging a history of
transmission of biblical material. During the eighteenth century mythological study was in-
troduced in biblical research.57
Major developments in the nineteenth century form the background for Israelite historiog-
raphy. The decipherment of Ancient Near Eastern languages – particularly Egyptian hiero-
glyphics and Akkadian cuneiform – unlocked literary remains of Israel's neighbours; this had,
subsequently, an enormous impact on the interpretation and research of the Hebrew Bible. 58
Julius Wellhausen – the most influential and significant biblical scholar of the nineteenth cen-
tury – carried out a comprehensive examination of the literary traditions in the Hexateuch. 59
He 'supported the documentary criticism which argued that there were four sources in the pen-
tateuch which originated in the order J, E, D, P'.60
Van der Kooij61 mentions that the work of Abraham Kuenen – 'one of the leading Old Testa-
ment scholars of the 19th century' – is characterised by his outstanding reasoning and meth-
odology. The purpose of the "Critical Method" of Kuenen was to reconstruct the Israelite re-
ligion and the history of Israel. A literary-critical and an historical-critical research of the lit-
erature of the Masoretic Text was considered as means to attain this goal. Although there are
many new developments in biblical historiography, Kuenen is still regarded as an important
57
Hayes 1977:2-3, 8, 23, 32-36, 44, 46, 52.
58
Hayes 1977:54.
59
The Hexateuch consists of the first six books of the Hebrew Bible, namely Genesis up to, and including, Josh-
ua (Deist 1990:114).
60
Hayes 1977:61. See brief discussion in § 8.2.
61
Van der Kooij 1993:49.
551
"discussion partner", pertaining to the literary-critical method.62 'The significance of
Kuenen's critical method lies in the fact that it reminds us of the question of coherence and
methodological compatibility of the various areas of Old Testament research, based on the
principles of an historical-cultural approach.'63
Biblical archaeology developed out of an historical approach to the biblical texts, and during
the first decades of the twentieth century biblical studies and archaeology were closely inter-
woven. In the latter half of the twentieth century biblical studies and archaeology divided into
several sub-disciplines. Archaeological practices were dominated by two schools of thought,
namely a continuation of the traditional culture-historical approach, and the "New Archaeolo-
gy", 64 'whose scientifically based paradigms challenged what was perceived as the highly sub-
jective nature of culture-historical interpretations of the past'. 65 Dever66 emphasises that 'ar-
chaeology is acknowledged as a potential source of historical information'.
Israelite historiography currently experiences a crisis; related epistemological issues are lately
being addressed by Syro-Palestinian archaeologists. Recent debates include the role of ar-
chaeology in the writing of a history of ancient Israel. Literature normally reflects only the
life of the literati. 67 Dever68 maintains that 'we need a fresh approach to the phenomenon of
ancient Israel that is truly critical, comparative, generative, synthetic, and ecumenical'.
Miller 69 explores the historical criticism of the Hebrew Bible the past two centuries; he 'out-
lines trends in historiographical theory, and assesses the impact newer theories of intellectual
cultural history can have on studies of the history of the social world of ancient Israel'. He
also indicates that – concerning the relevance of the Hebrew Bible for the history of ancient
Israel – scholars should approach this matter with an open mind. A substantial number of
scholars assume 'that the biblical pattern is automatically wrong and that the first principle of
operation is to discard it for something else'. 70 However, if at least not some of the biblical
testimony is accepted, scholars would hardly know where – or in which chronological period
62
Van der Kooij 1993:49, 54, 61.
63
Van der Kooij 1993:63.
64
See brief discussion in § 2.2, subtitle "Palynology".
65
Killebrew 2005:3.
66
Dever 1997b:291.
67
Dever 1997b:297, 299, 304.
68
Dever 1997b:305.
69
Miller 2006:149.
70
Miller 2006:159.
552
– to look for Israel's artefacts. 71 Miller72 emphasises that 'we must always clearly distinguish
what it is possible to know and what it is possible to propose. Let us be explicit with our
models, open to revision, and seek not 'how it really was', but 'what we can really say'.' In his
book, The authority of the Bible,73 Gnuse74 indicates that three questions should be raised
concerning the authority of the Bible, namely, what the word "authority" means, why the Bi-
ble is regarded authoritative and how this authority could be applied to the faith and practice
of the church. He discusses different models of inspiration, and points out that 'greater sensi-
tivity to the biblical text and its complex process of development has led to a modern theory
of inspiration'.75 Biblical scholars now realise that the production of a text often involved
more than one individual. The inspiration for a text therefore resided primarily in a communi-
ty.76
On the question, "What is the Bible?", Finkelstein and Silberman 77 denote that the Hebrew
Bible – previously referred to as the Old Testament – is primarily a collection of ancient writ-
ings. A comparison of archaeological data and biblical narratives eventuates in 'a fascinating
and complex relationship between what actually happened'78 and the historical chronicles in
the Hebrew Bible. I wish to endorse a remark by Berlinerblau 79 that the Hebrew Bible 'is a
religious book and not a history book'. In conclusion, Friedman 80 mentions that for many
years scholars – in their analysis of the Hebrew Bible – appeared to be taking it apart in nu-
merous pieces, which was thus not the Bible anymore. However, scholars have now reached
the point 'at which our discoveries concerning the Bible's origins can mean an enhanced un-
derstanding and appreciation of the Bible in its final, developed form'.
8.2 Hypotheses on the Pentateuch

It was only during the eighteenth century that scholars seriously attempted to 'differentiate the
component parts of the Pentateuch according to a theory of multiple sources or documents'. 81
In 1711 the German pastor H B Witter noted that the two creation accounts in Genesis are dis-
tinguished by the names Elohim and Yahweh. He was followed by other scholars who
71
Miller 2006:160.
72
Miller 2006:161.
73
See bibliography in this thesis: Gnuse 1985.
74
Gnuse 1985:2.
75
Gnuse 1985:50.
76
Gnuse 1985:50-51.
77
Finkelstein & Silberman 2001:5-6.
78
79
80
Friedman 1987:241.
81
West 1981:63.
553
advanced that the Book of Genesis had been compiled from an Elohim source and a Yahweh
source. J G Eichhorn developed this theory in 1780, characterising the two suggested
sources. The three-document hypothesis was initiated by K D Ilgen in 1798, according to
which the Elohim source was subdivided into two parts. During the nineteenth century schol-
ars realised different literary traditions could be found in the first four books of the Penta-
teuch.82 The three sources identified were therefore the Yahwist, or "J" document, Elohim –
or "E" document – and a second Elohim document with priestly characteristics, thus designat-
ed "P". Scholars concluded that a redactor skilfully combined these individual documents
into a unified whole. Deuteronomy – basically distinct from the first four books – was named
as the fourth pentateuchal source, "D".83
During the nineteenth century these earlier theories were coordinated by two German schol-
ars, Karl Graf and Julius Wellhausen. They proposed the classic chronology – or Documen-
tary hypothesis – J, E, D and P. Significant studies in Deuteronomy by W M L de Wette fa-
cilitated the dating of these documents; Deuteronomy became the key element in the Docu-
mentary hypothesis. During 1805 De Wette concluded that Deuteronomy was the book found
in the Jerusalem Temple on which Josiah's 84 reforms were based.85 Since the time of Well-
hausen, 'the original documentary hypothesis has undergone considerable modification'. 86
The recognition of multiple authors in the narrative sections, as well as in the legal and ritual
parts of the Pentateuch, is based on the evidence of duplications, contradictions and inconsist-
encies in this work. In the legal portion of the Pentateuch the different documents could be
distinguished easily, due to endings and conclusions that mark their boundaries. In contrast,
'the narrative sources are intertwined with one another and discontinuous'. 87 The moment bib-
lical criticism negated Moses' traditional position as composer of the Pentateuch, it also relin-
quished any certainty about either the time of composition or the identity of its authors. Ac-
cording to Wellhausen, the J-document was composed during the ninth century BC, the E-
document in the eighth, D in the seventh and P in the sixth to fifth century BC. Scholars later
had various objections concerning Wellhausen's proposal.88 Rofé89 indicates that the P and D
documents initially had separate geographical origins. 'The question of the dates and sources
82
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.
83
West 1981:63-64.
84
Josiah, Judean king, dated ca 640-609 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:197).
85
West 1981:63-65.
86
West 1981:65.
87
Rofé 1999:30.
88
Rofé 1999:17, 28, 30, 62, 65-66.
89
Rofé 1999:75, 80.
554
of P and D is complicated by the fact that one can identify in each of them discrete sections
that may be earlier or later than the rest of the document.'90 The Holiness Code, "H", which is
found in P,91 is a well-known example. Scholars have suggested that H should 'be considered
a separate theological trajectory', 92 and dated later than P in Leviticus.
According to the nineteenth century Dutch historian, Abraham Kuenen, 'the prophetic concep-
tion of Israel's early history and of the Mosaic legislation no longer fully satisfied the priest in
Babylonia';93 he felt compelled to recreate the past and present a more accurate account to his
contemporaries. Rofé94 is of the opinion that Kuenen's dating of the Priestly source in the ex-
ilic-post-exilic period is the correct assessment. Yet, as Kuenen 95 aptly indicated, P is not the
expression of a post-exilic way of life, but rather the incorporation of old traditions preserved
by the priesthood – the most conservative class in the land of Israel. De Vries96 compares
Kuenen's pentateuchal studies with research lately done in North America. The American
pentateuchal scholar, George W Coats – for example – seldom wrote on the same passages
that Kuenen analysed for his exegetical articles. It is, however, significant that Coats 'em-
ploys in his own original way the methodology that made Kuenen famous'. 97
Friedman98 is of the opinion that the redactor mainly arranged existing texts – not writing
much of his own – therefore there is little evidence to identify him. As the major sections of
the Pentateuch all begin with Priestly texts, the person(s) was probably aligned with the circle
of Aaronid priests. Friedman99 identifies Ezra as the redactor.
Coats100 mentions that the pentateuchal narrative portrays the traditions of a community for
many generations, before it was recorded. 'Different generations preserved the verbal portrait
as their distinctive document of identity for their particular time.' 101 At least two different
forms of chronicles have been combined to construct the Pentateuch. The oldest form was
90
Rofé 1999:80.
91
The form of the Holiness Code 'is defined by the standard format of biblical legal codes. It begins with the
laws of sacrifices … and ends with blessings and curses'. It is found particularly in Leviticus 17-26 (Rofé
1999:80).
92
Gnuse 2000:220.
93
Kuenen 1882b:173.
94
Rofé 1993:106-107.
95
Kuenen 1882b:248-249.
96
De Vries 1993:129, 139, 142-143.
97
De Vries 1993:142.
98
Friedman 1987:218, 232.
99
Friedman 1987:232.
100
Coats 1993:152, 190-191.
101
Coats 1993:152.
555
seemingly under the influence of the Davidic court,102 and might have been composed in the
time of Solomon.103 The Yahwist was presumably the author of the oldest strand in the Pen-
tateuch; a history of the world is portrayed – probably written by Davidic scribes – with Da-
vid's kingdom at its centre. According to Von Rad,104 the Priestly account of the creation nar-
rative is not myth, but priestly doctrine – thus ancient sacred knowledge – which was pre-
served and handed down by generations of priests, who reformed and expanded this doctrine
by new reflections and experiences of faith.
Propp105 mentions that some scholars, although they continue to support the traditional image
of P as a continuous narrative, acknowledge the presence of various supplements to P. They
have pointed out contradictions and doublets in the Priestly material arguing that an author or
"supplementer" hardly would have created a document that would regularly repeat and con-
tradict itself. Other scholars raise the question why the editor did not rather start a new doc-
ument, instead of 'creating chaos out of order'.106 Smith107 indicates that the Book of Exodus
exhibits a number of Priestly glosses and compositions; biblical researchers now acknowledge
a significant Priestly redaction of the book. Scholars, furthermore, lately contend that the
Pentateuch is 'a basic collection of traditions that was continuously supplemented … and later
extensively edited by different redactors'. 108
Relatively late dating of the pentateuchal sources would have significant consequences for the
theology, history, history of religion and literary history of the Hebrew Bible. Firm historical
grounds support a late – thus exilic – date for the Yahwist.109 'The catastrophe of the exile
gave rise to extensive thought and writings in Israel. … (this) event needed explanation in
large historical and theological works of literature'. 110 Anderson111 denotes that the question
arises whether the writers – or redactors – of the pentateuchal traditions were aware of the
presence of Cushites in seventeenth century BC Palestine. Does the reference to Moses' mar-
riage to a Cushite woman112 support early dating of the pentateuchal material, or does it
102
David reigned ca 1011-971 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
103
Solomon reigned ca 971-931 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
104
Von Rad 1972:63.
105
Propp 1996:458-459.
106
Propp 1996:459.
107
Smith 1997:181.
108
Van Dyk 1990:194.
109
Van Dyk 1990:197-198.
110
Van Dyk 1990:197.
111
Anderson 1995:59. Anderson (1995:45-70) discusses Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine – a matter that has
been neglected with regard to the history of this region.
112
Numbers 12:1.
556
sustain the idea of retrojection? Waaler113 mentions that the tendency among scholars to date
pentateuchal texts to exilic or post-exilic times might be challenged by the amulets from Ketef
Hinnom;114 these are dated between 725 BC and 650 BC. The amulets contain material from
the Priestly source in Numbers,115 as well as from Deuteronomy. 116 He contends that evi-
dence from Ketef Hinnom – the priestly blessing in the two amulets, with little variation in
the text – 'indicates a continuous written tradition before the inscription of the amulets'. 117 It
thus seems evident that a written tradition existed – that included these two texts – prior to
this inscription.118
According to Gnuse, 119 'the Elohist now has slipped into obscurity at the hands of contempo-
rary pentateuchal scholars'. As the J and P traditions seemingly emerged in the Exile, the
Elohist is thus incorporated in the Yahwist. Gnuse 120 discusses different viewpoints of vari-
ous scholars regarding the Elohist. He is of the opinion that Alan Jenks provides the best elu-
cidation in his suggestion that the Elohist was a school of thought – and not a single author –
that emerged in the North; Elohist themes are linked to northern Israelite prophetic traditions.
Some scholars, however, conclude 'that the Elohist tradition may never have existed'. 121 Con-
trary to these scholars, Gnuse 122 argues that an Elohist tradition could be dated to the seventh
century BC; he advances three arguments to substantiate this suggestion. In addition to his
reasoning, he proposes that the destruction of Samaria in 722 BC could have inspired an Elo-
hist tradition as a northern prophetic response to this disaster.123
Dever124 points out a statement by Rendtorff 'that the classic Documentary hypothesis is
dead'. 125 This hypothesis dominated the literary approach to the Pentateuch for more than a
hundred years. The new literary approach differs from prior studies primarily in its interest in
texts as literary objects, rather than in the history of the text; its interest is thus in literary
113
Waaler 2002:29.
114
See brief discussion in § 2.12 on the Ketef Hinnom amulets.
115
Numbers 6:24-26.
116
Deuteronomy 7:9.
117
Waaler 2002:53.
118
Waaler 2002:29, 53.
119
Gnuse 2000:201.
120
See Gnuse (2000:202-204) regarding these viewpoints.
121
Gnuse 2000:204.
122
To substantiate this suggestion, Gnuse (2000:204-209) discusses the Deir ‛Alla inscription and the dream
reports in Elohist texts; the latter are linked to the Mesopotamian dream report formula. According to a third
argument, theological themes attributed to the Elohist date to a time prior to the Exile.
123
See Gnuse (2000:209-214, 220) for an elucidation of this reasoning.
124
Dever 1997b:294.
125
The statement is in an article in the inaugural issue of Biblical Interpretation: Rendtorff, R 1994. The para-
digm is changing: hopes – and fears. Biblical Interpretation 1. No page number.
557
criticism, rather than literary history. 126 Rendtorff127 denotes that until the 1970s the Docu-
mentary hypothesis 'was commonly accepted and seldom questioned'; 128 according to this
theory, the Pentateuch was formed from a number of independent sources that were, at the
end of their transmission, brought together by redactors. The postulated number of sources
varied among schools and scholars. In retrospect it is obvious that at no stage the hypothesis
had been unanimously accepted by all supporters. Different views and opinions were includ-
ed. The only consensus reached – seemingly – after twenty years debate about the composi-
tion of the Pentateuch, is that the four-source theory is obsolete. There are signs that a mean-
ingful agreement has been reached concerning the following proposals:
'The earliest major composition extending from the patriarchs to the beginning of the
settlement in Canaan … was produced in a deuteronomistic environment, not earlier
than the seventh century BCE, and probably not before the sixth century BCE.
The priestly (P) material comprises a supplement (or series of supplements) to this
composition, not an independent account of Israel's origins that once existed separate-
ly from it and was secondarily combined with it by a redactor'.129
This "new" proposal makes it quite clear that the basic elements of the Documentary hypothe-
sis are not regarded any longer as valid. There is also no longer a definite difference between
"earlier" and "later" sources, and "P" is not regarded any more as an originally independent
source. The initial alternate views of the emergence of the Pentateuch were in confrontation
with the Documentary hypothesis. There is still a wide range of reactions between the two
extreme positions. A number of scholars support an exilic or post-exilic J, and believe that
the Pentateuch had one author who was an historian. The Yahwist is also seen as a redactor
who composed a history out of different sources. Other scholars assume that there are no
sources at all; the main emphasis of the research is on the latest layers or compositions of the
texts. One of the most obvious results of the debates the past number of years 'is the tendency
to date the "pentateuchal" composition not earlier than the Babylonian Exile'. 130 It is therefore
important to conceive that significant texts of the Hebrew Bible got their final profile in the
exilic and post-exilic times. 131
126
Fretheim 1991:5-6.
127
Rendtorff 1997:43, 45, 49.
128
Rendtorff 1997:43.
129
Rendtorff 1997:49.
130
Rendtorff 1997:56.
131
Rendtorff 1997:49, 51, 53, 55-56.
558
Van Dyk132 categorises new hypotheses on the origin of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is
'too complex to be explained simply as the result of a few authors' creative and compilatory
works'.133 He indicates that the "Redaction History" perceives the Pentateuch 'as a basic col-
lection of traditions that was continuously supplemented … and later extensively edited by
different redactors',134 while, according to the "transmission historical approach" – or Trans-
mission History – of Rendtorff, several blocks of tradition that were transmitted separately –
mainly in written form – were compiled by a redactor. At the same time as the rise of these
two hypotheses, the dating of the different layers of the Pentateuch was reconsidered. The
earlier Yahwist source is now dated according to an early ground layer, and an exilic redac-
tion. Arguments have been advanced, indicating that at least the Yahwistic redaction should
be seen within the framework of the deuteronomistic literature. Van Dyk 135 suggests that 'a
coherent theory of literature should be devised to explain the origin of the Pentateuch'.
Rofé136 reaches the conclusion that the composition of the Pentateuch seemingly had been a
'lengthy and complex creative process', which lasted from the days of the Judges – twelfth
century BC – until the end of the Persian Period, fourth century BC. All stages of composi-
tion137 were included in this process.
Sweek138 denotes that scholarly disputes of the past could be described as 'consensus, its
breakdown, and synthesis … as long as we understand that they are not norms we should pur-
sue in the academic conversation of the present'.
8.3 Deuteronomistic historiography

On the question what "deuteronomic" and "deuteronomistic" mean, scholars have suggested
that "deuteronomic" describes 'that which pertains specifically to the book of Deuteronomy',
while "deuteronomistic" is 'more general, to denote the influence or thought-forms associated
with the work of the Deuteronomists and expressed more widely and diffusely in the litera-
ture'.139 For Van Seters140 the term "deuteronomistic" means 'a piece of literature that is
132
Van Dyk 1990:194-196.
133
Van Dyk 1990:194.
134
Van Dyk 1990:194.
135
Van Dyk 1990:200.
136
Rofé 1999:130.
137
Initial oral transmission, individual story writing, composition of cycles of stories, and collections of laws
(Rofé 1999:130).
138
Sweek 1995:419.
139
Coggins 1995:136.
140
559
closely related to the recognized work of the Deuteronomist within the corpus of Deuterono-
my and Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) and that reflects a set of theological and social con-
cerns that are most characteristic of this editorial hand'. The term "deuteronomic" was initial-
ly applied when referring to the pentateuchal source D. Martin Noth later 'discerned both a D
source and later redactional material in the book of Deuteronomy' 141 and created the term
"deuteronomistic" to refer to this later redactional material. Coggins 142 indicates 'the extreme
diversity underlying contemporary scholarly usage of "Deuteronomistic" and related terms'.
Scholars traditionally observed that the deuteronomists were responsible for the Book of Deu-
teronomy, as well as most of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, 143 and non-narrative
prose in Jeremiah, Isaiah 36-39, and small units in Amos and Hosea. However, pentateuchal
studies lately indicate that 'the Deuteronomists (are) represented in most of the books of the
Torah'. 144 Since the development of the classical Documentary hypothesis that restricted the
deuteronomistic contribution to the Book of Deuteronomy, scholars became aware of similari-
ties between the work of the Deuteronomist and that of the Elohist. It also became obvious
that 'Deuteronomistic editing is much more pervasive than scholars have previously thought,
particularly in the Torah'. 145 Contemporary scholars are, notwithstanding, familiar with the
viewpoint that the deuteronomists were the developers of the Deuteronomistic History. The
idea that a single creator was responsible for this history, is associated with the name of Mar-
tin Noth; he argued strongly against the concept of a slow progression through the work of
several editors. Lately, the notion of scholars – who approach the Hebrew Bible as literature
– is that 'the Deuteronomists were creative writers more than they were historians utilizing
earlier sources'. 146 The Deuteronomistic History, therefore, should not be deemed a reliable
historical record.147
Friedman148 identifies the prophet Jeremiah as the Deuteronomist. He had the literary skills
and wrote precisely in the time attributed to the emergence of the Deuteronomistic History.
He proffers the idea that the first edition of this history would have been written before the
death of Josiah in 609 BC, while the second edition had to be written after the Babylonian
141
Person 2002:4-5.
142
Coggins 1995:144.
143
Deuteronomistic History: Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings (Wilson 1999:68).
144
Wilson 1999:68.
145
Wilson 1999:69.
146
Wilson 1999:72.
147
Wilson 1999:68-69, 71-73.
148
Friedman 1987:145-146.
560
exile in 587 BC. One person could easily have recorded a history in a period of twenty-two
years.
Present debates are concerned with a deuteronomistic redaction of the Tetrateuch 149 and en-
deavour 'to find the oldest basis for the Sinai-Horeb tradition and the time and circumstances
under which the law (Torah) became associated with it'.150 Van Seters151 reviews different
scholars' viewpoints on this matter and summarises his own perspective. He acknowledges an
early theophany tradition associated with the worship of Yahweh, but indicates that it is not to
be found in Exodus 19-20. He also reaches the conclusion that there is no deuteronomistic
redaction in the Tetrateuch. Person152 indicates that arguments for deuteronomistic redaction
in prophetic books, as well as the Tetrateuch, have led to a tendency to associate the Deutero-
nomic School with the complete Hebrew Bible and has thus prompted warnings of "pan-
Deuteronomism". Although pan-Deuteronomism has been rejected, it is necessary that schol-
ars take a closer look at deliberations against this propensity. Pan-Deuteronomism 'refers to
the collection of various arguments for Deuteronomic redaction in or of diverse books outside
of the Deuteronomic History and Jeremiah'. 153 Person154 assesses views against this phenom-
enon by different scholars, and concludes that pan-Deuteronomism should be rejected as it
does not adequately describe the literature of ancient Israel and, in addition, 'its rhetorical
force may also unjustifiably lead some scholars to dismiss arguments made by those accused
erroneously of promoting the idea of pan-Deuteronomism'. 155 Wilson156 refers to a theory ad-
vanced by the scholar Lothar Perlitt, who suggested that the deuteronomists – possibly under
the influence of prophets such as Hosea – developed the idea of covenant and introduced it to
other biblical literature, particularly the Sinai section of the Torah. This proposal by Perlitt
influenced the later pan-Deuteronomism.
McKenzie157 mentions that 'the book of Deuteronomy is sometimes referred to as the "Archi-
medean point"158 of pentateuchal criticism. … . For biblical scholars since the time of de
Wette, Deuteronomy has been the fulcrum upon which critical study of the Pentateuch
149
First four books in the Hebrew Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers (Deist 1990:256).
150
151
Van Seters 1999:161-170.
152
Person 2002:13.
153
Person 2002:14.
154
Person 2002:13-15.
155
Person 2002:15.
156
Wilson 1999:69.
157
McKenzie 1999:262.
158
Archimedes – dated third century BC – 'who studied the properties of levers, claimed to be able to move the
world if given the proper vantage point' (McKenzie 1999:262).
561
swings'. McKenzie159 also states that Deuteronomy is the only pentateuchal source that can
be firmly dated on internal grounds. Although there are indications that the "Book of Law"
found under king Josiah in the late seventh century BC, might be fictional, there remain posi-
tive reasons to link Deuteronomy with Josiah. Scholars have perceived Deuteronomy as the
key to the formation of the Hebrew Bible in its totality. The deuteronomistic historian thus,
seemingly, enlarged the "Book of Law" and set it as a guide of his theological history of Isra-
el. It is therefore apparent that Deuteronomy – and particularly its deuteronomistic amplifica-
tion – effected a significant influence on the formation of the Hebrew Bible. McKenzie, 160
however, observes that the effect of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History on the
composition of the Hebrew Bible 'is not tantamount to pan-Deuteronomism'.
Dever161 denotes that mainstream scholars date the composition and first editing of the Deu-
teronomistic History toward the end of the Israelite Monarchy, probably during the reign of
Josiah.162 Handy163 indicates that Assyriology has influenced scholars' conception of Josiah
significantly. Biblical scholars had previously almost exclusively employed the narratives of
Kings and Chronicles to reconstruct the late seventh century BC political environment of Ju-
dah. Due to the decipherment of Akkadian texts, Josiah's reign became incorporated into As-
syrian history. Assyriology enhanced scholars' perception of the deities in Josiah's reign. On
the assumption that Josiah achieved political freedom from Assyria, the "reform" narratives
should be read against a declining Assyrian presence. A possible reconstruction of this period
'finds Josiah scrambling to deal with political instability', and thus 'to read the cult reform as a
de facto political revolt from Assyria'. 164 The death of Josiah, and thus the end of his reign,
has also been re-evaluated in the light of Assyriology.
According to a long scholarly tradition, 165 the scroll – or "Book of Law" – found in the Tem-
ple during the reign of Josiah, was assumed to be the Book of Deuteronomy. There is, how-
ever, 'no sustainable reason for this identification'. 166 As the canonical Deuteronomy com-
prises more data than that of which the author of Kings had been aware of, it clearly could not
have been in existence at the time of Josiah. It is therefore improbable that the text in
159
McKenzie 1999:262-263.
160
McKenzie 1999:267.
161
Dever 2003:38.
162
640-609 BC (Dever 2003:38).
163
Handy 2006:415-416, 421, 424, 430.
164
Handy 2006:424.
165
The early Church Fathers – including Jerome – identified the scroll as Deuteronomy (Friedman 1987:101).
166
Handy 1995:254. See Handy (1995:255-263) for his arguments against the existence of a canonical Deuter-
onomy at the time of Josiah.
562
Kings167 refers to Deuteronomy, or an earlier edition thereof. During the early nineteenth
century De Wette, however, argued that Deuteronomy was the "book" discovered in the Tem-
ple and handed to Josiah. He, furthermore, maintained that it was written not long before it
was so-called "found". The book was thus compiled to supply grounds for Josiah's religious
reform. 168 According to Althann, 169 the account in 2 Kings 22 of the discovery of the law
book resembles the story in 2 Kings 12 regarding Joash's [Jehoash] Temple restoration; it is
thus 'sometimes judged to be an invention of a Deuteronomistic Historian'. Notwithstanding,
the document probably did exist, at least as part of Deuteronomy. Droge's 170 view, on the
other hand, is that 'the "Book of Law" was neither part of Deuteronomy nor any other known
book'. Some scholars are of the opinion that the book had been the result of a "pious fraud"
promoted by the high priest Hilkiah and the secretary Shaphan. Their intention would have
been to convince Josiah that the reforms were in accordance with the direct command of God,
as revealed to Moses. Claims of the discovery of an ancient document were at times present-
ed to legitimise a group's arguments. Wolfgang Speyer 171 – a leading expert on forgery in
Mediterranean antiquity – introduced the concept of authentic religious pseudepigraphy. 172 'A
book "discovered" in a sacred place seems to have been one of the most potent instruments
available.'173 It is, however, improbable that the law code originated from the royal court; it
seems unlikely that Josiah – or any other king – would have had it written to serve his own
political purposes. This particular law code restricts the king in many ways. It, furthermore,
'contains material that relates to conditions that existed before there were any kings in Israel
or Judah'.174
The deuteronomistic law code includes prohibitions against the practising of pagan reli-
gions. 175 The Deuteronomist did not intend to deny the existence of deities other than Yah-
weh, but to convey the idea of the sovereignty of Yahweh over all gods – although it did not
express an exclusiveness of Yahweh; it was thus legitimate for each nation to venerate its own
deities. 176 Hadley177 indicates that the deuteronomist(s) treats deities – such as Asherah – as
167
2 Kings 22:8-20; particularly verse 8.
168
Friedman 1987:101-102.
169
Althann 1992:1016.
170
Droge 2003:122.
171
See also footnote in § 3.1. This phenomenon was widespread in the Ancient Near East, as well as in Greece
and Rome (Droge 2003:135).
172
Droge 2003:122, 126-127, 129, 135.
173
Droge 2003:142.
174
Friedman 1987:119.
175
Friedman 1987:118.
176
Hoffman 1994:73.
177
Hadley 1997:177.
563
common nouns, which might have been an attempt to eradicate the worship of these gods by
reducing their roles and granting Yahweh control over their functions. Due to the centralisa-
tion of the cult the Levites were grouped with the poor; 'the deuteronomic laws (therefore)
enhance the marginal status of the Levites'. 178 Yet, Fechter179 is of the opinion that 'deutero-
nomic lawgiving came from levitical circles'. Nelson180 suggests – as a possible scenario –
that the Book of Deuteronomy started 'as a covert undertaking by dissident Jerusalem scribal
circles during the reign of Manasseh, with collaboration from conservative rural landowners,
elements of the priesthood, and those schooled in wisdom'. Motivational rhetoric attached to
the laws was incorporated in order to encourage the acceptance of this material. Additions
were subsequently added to Deuteronomy to adapt it to new ideological situations. 181
Lohfink182 denotes that 'the expression Deuteronomistic movement is accompanied by Deu-

teronomistic school'. He argues that a movement – embodied in groups of supporters – goes
beyond the limits of an organisation that had been created ad hoc. Differentiated groups and
individuals may join a movement. A movement is normally aimed at social, and often also
political, change. To construct a hypothesis of a deuteronomistic movement, scholars should
identify the objectives of the deuteronomists more than concentrating on the analysis of their
style. A movement therefore does not mean linguistic uniformity. The mere occurrence of
particular texts – without an historical investigation – does neither support the existence of
such a movement nor exclude the existence thereof. Scholars, at times, refer to literature that
stemmed from a deuteronomistic movement, projecting a modern concept of "reading culture"
back into ancient Israel.183
If the deuteronomistic movement did really exist, the question is to what extent and in what
form. Authors – in the Northern Kingdom – of deuteronomistic texts, probably worked under
the inspiration of the prophet Hosea; this explains traces of certain ideas and language of Ho-
sea in deuteronomistic writings. The suppression of traditional ancestral cults under Hezekiah
corresponds to the editing of a document of the Torah, later – seemingly – discovered under
Josiah in the Temple; this document deals particularly with new regulations concerning wor-
ship. These abovementioned occurrences, however, do not justify speaking of a "movement".
178
Lasine 1994:210.
179
Fechter 2000:693.
180
Nelson 2003:241.
181
Nelson 2003:241-242.
182
Lohfink 1999:36.
183
Lohfink 1999:36, 45-48.
564
These particular texts could have been composed by scribes on royal command. The Torah-
text probably dealt only with questions of cultic reform, and would appear to be the first of a
more elaborate Torah; it is normally referred to as "Ur-Deuteronomy". The actions of Heze-
kiah could have been supported by a movement; there is, however, no information to substan-
tiate such a deduction.184
During the time of Josiah there actually seems to have been a movement. The reform of Josi-
ah was 'at the same time an extensive movement of national, social and religious renewal that
made use of the historical opportunity offered by the decline of Assyrian power to reconstruct
resolutely and thoroughly the State of Israel'. 185 This movement included nobility of Judah,
some Jerusalem court officials, a large part of the Temple clergy, the ordinary "people of the
land", as well as prophets and their circles of disciples. Apart from a textual basis in Deuter-
onomy, the movement probably produced all sorts of other texts. The movement, understand-
ably, developed during the years 630-609 BC, but broke up rather quickly after the sudden
death of Josiah in 609 BC. The Deuteronomy of that period would have been the movement's
most important text; the question is whether this movement should be referred to as deuteron-
omistic. 186
Weinfeld187 illustrates that two views prevailed concerning the establishment of Israel as a
people. 188 Deuteronomy secured the very old tradition that Israel became a nation while
standing on the plains of Moab;189 it, therefore, had chosen the northern Shechemite tradition
– which indeed seems to be the most ancient one. In the deuteronomistic historiography the
two sins of Israel – Ba‛al and the golden calves – were condemned in Northern Israel before
the rise of the deuteronomistic movement. After the fall of Samaria in 722 BC, Hezekiah –
king of Judah – endeavoured to draw the northern population to Jerusalem. 190 The expansion
of Jerusalem and of the territory of Judah at the end of the eighth century BC, has been attest-
ed archaeologically. A 'period of national revival may explain the nationalistic and patriotic
atmosphere prevailing in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic literature'. 191 Work on the Deuter-
onomistic History – that allegedly presents Israel's history from the exodus to the end
184
Lohfink 1999:56-57.
185
Lohfink 1999:58.
186
Lohfink 1999:58-59.
187
Weinfeld 1985:76-79, 83, 89-94.
188
According to the one view, the establishment of Israel as a people occurred in Sinai at Moses' initiative; ac-
cording to the other view, this enactment took place at Shechem, under Joshua's leadership (Weinfeld 1985:78).
189
Deuteronomy 26:16-18; 27:9.
190
See 2 Chronicles 30.
191
Weinfeld 1985:91.
565
of the Monarchical Period – was set in motion as a result of the national consciousness, which
developed in the time of Hezekiah and Josiah. Deuteronomistic scribes collected traditions
from Northern sanctuaries and utilised these traditions 'in order to render an ideal picture of
total conquest of the land under Joshua, the leader of the house of Joseph'. 192 Zevit 193 is of the
opinion that the Deuteronomist's perception of his own time, and of Israel's past, might have
been moulded in the school of thought that developed among 'sophisticated wisdom-
orientated courtiers' during the reign of Hezekiah. The deuteronomistic historian probably
also benefited from 'direct cross-cultural stimulation by Mesopotamian writers'. 194
Friedman195 refers to literature of the scholarly field 'filled with expressions such as "the Deu-
teronomistic school", "the Deuteronomistic circle of tradition" …, "the Deuteronomistic
movement" …' and indicates that 'the vagueness of these terms in the absence of clear refer-
ents in history … is a major weakness in the entire enterprise and a serious threat to our pro-
gress in this area'. He questions the probability of a Deuteronomic School, what it was, who
its members were, whether they held any meetings, and whether they were in competition
with the wisdom and the J schools. Person 196 identifies a "school" as 'a place of instruction or
a group of individuals connected by a common ideology and/or method', whereas the Deuter-
onomic School 'denotes a scribal guild that was active in the Babylonian exile and Persian
period and had its origins in the bureaucracy of the monarchy'. In his research on the Deuter-
onomistic History and the Book of Jeremiah, Friedman197 reaches the conclusion that, if a dis-
tinction is drawn between a deuteronomistic writer of some sections, and the deuteronomistic
editing of other sections, it does not necessarily add up to a "school". Although he does not
negate the existence of a deuteronomic school, he is of the opinion that – with the present
state of evidence available – scholars should not just assume that such a school did exist. Per-
son,198 on the other hand, indicates that scholars 'limit the dating of the Deuteronomic school's
final redactional activity to the exilic period', and thereby basically acknowledge the existence
of such a school.
In 538 BC the Persian king, Cyrus, issued a decree to support the return of the exiles to Jeru-
salem. This strategy included 'the return of scribal groups who were responsible for the
192
Weinfeld 1985:94.
193
Zevit 2001:442.
194
Zevit 2001:445.
195
Friedman 1995:71.
196
Person 2002:7.
197
Friedman 1995:79-80.
198
Person 2002:31.
566
codification and preservation of religious literature associated with the restored sanctuary'. 199
The Deuteronomic School could therefore have returned to Judah with Persian support.
Scholars lately date the final redactions of many biblical books to the Persian Period 200 – and
even as late as the Hellenistic Period. 201 The Deuteronomic School in Jerusalem – during the
Persian Period – could have consisted of a small group of literati. The reconstruction of a
scribal school associated with a temple was in accordance with practices throughout the An-
cient Near East. Although the Deuteronomic School probably also produced material for the
Jerusalem administration, its main interest would have been the composition, redaction and
transmission of religious texts. 202 'In the postexilic period, the restored community in Jerusa-
lem was essentially a cultic community.'203 The deuteronomistic tradition clearly envisions
Jerusalem as the central sanctuary. 204
According to Wittenberg,205 'the relationship between the Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) and
its theology and the proclamation of the classical prophets from Amos to Jeremiah is one of
the unsolved problem areas of Old Testament scholarship'. Biblical scholars are mystified
why the Deuteronomistic History does not mention the prophets Amos and Hosea, who, re-
spectively, addressed a social crisis, and influenced the Yahweh-alone movement. Hosea's
critical attitude towards the Monarchy could perhaps best explain this prophet's omission.
Both Amos and Hosea were probably considered too radical by the deuteronomistic historian
to be included in this "historical" work. 206 Evans207 denotes that, although he does not deny
the existence of 'affinities between the Deuteronomistic ideology and the book of Hosea', he
finds it difficult 'to take such affinities as evidence' of Hezekiah and Josiah's reform actions.
Scholars also debate the possibility of deuteronomistic redaction(s) – or influence – in the
corpus of the "Twelve" prophets. There is lately ample support for such a suggestion. 208
While the presence of deuteronomistic phraseology is conspicuous in the books Joshua to
Kings – and clearly links these books, and also closely binds them to Deuteronomy – the ab-
sence of such phraseology is noteworthy in the prophetic books. It is, however, reasonable to
199
Person 2002:57. See also – in this connection – 1 Chronicles 2:55, referring to 'scribes who lived at Jabez'.
200
Persian Period dated: 539-332 BC.
201
Hellenistic Period dated: 332-37 BC.
202
Person 2002:56-57, 60-61, 79-80.
203
Hoppe 1985:109.
204
Hoppe 1985:110.
205
206
Wittenberg 2007:121, 133-135.
207
Evans 1995:209.
208
See Ben Zvi (1999:233-234) for a motivation of the claim of deuteronomistic redaction in the "Twelve"
prophets, and pages 235-261 for a detailed discussion of this suggestion.
567
assume that the absence of deuteronomistic language is not accidental, but conveys the mes-
sage that these texts were written in each prophet's own voice, and not in a "Mosaic voice". 209
Nelson210 refers to research done on a theory of a double redaction of the Deuteronomistic

History and provides criteria for separating the two redactional levels. 211 However, several
questions remain unanswered, such as what the relationship is 'of these two redactional levels
to the plural stratum of Deuteronomy' and whether 'the respective theologies of the two Deu-
teronomists (could) be delineated more precisely than in the general overview' as offered by
Nelson212 himself. Cross213 reaches the conclusion 'that there were two editions of the Deu-
teronomistic history, one written in the era of Josiah as a programmatic document of his re-
form and of his revival of the Davidic state.214 … The second edition, 215 completed about 550
B.C., not only updated the history by adding a chronicle of events subsequent to Josiah's
reign, it also attempted to transform the work into a sermon on history addressed to Judaean
exiles.' Should scholars accept the existence of two editions of the deuteronomist(s)' work, 'a
number of puzzles and apparent contradictions in the Deuteronomistic history are dissolved or
explained'. 216
In the final instance, O'Brien217 discusses trends in scholarly research on the Book of Deuter-
onomy. He refers to a comprehensive survey on Deuteronomy by H D Preuss,218 published in
1982. According to that research, Deuteronomy was divided into two main sections, namely
historical-critical issues and studies done on particular parts of the book. 219 Debates concern-
ing historical-critical matters were dominated by classical questions on the historical origins
of the book, as well as the extent and shape of the original text. The survey also indicated that
209
Ben Zvi 1999:233, 258-259.
210
Nelson 1981:119-128.
211
The classical theory of a double redaction of Kings was rejected – partly due to 'Noth's convincing analysis of
a unified theology and redactional structure for the larger complex of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings' (Nelson
1981:127). Irregularities were, however, noticed by literary critics, thus preventing a unanimous adoption of the
view of a single exilic historian (Nelson 1981:127).
212
Nelson 1981:127.
213
Cross 1973:287.
214
This edition – primary edition (Dtr1) – contains themes of an interaction of judgement and hope to provide a
motivation for a return to the jealous god of Israel, and of the reuniting of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah un-
der Josiah (Cross 1973:287).
215
In the second – "revised" – edition, Dtr 2, 'the account of Manasseh's reign in particular was retouched, con-
forming Judah's fate to that of Samaria and Manasseh's role to that of Jeroboam'. The rectification did not – in
general – obscure the earlier framework (Cross 1973:287-288).
216
Cross 1973:288.
217
O'Brien 1995:95, 97-99, 101-105.
218
Preuss, H D 1982. Deuteronomium (Ed F, 164; Darmstadt: Wissenscaftliche Buchgesellschaft) (O'Brien
1995:126).
219
Studies done on 'Deuteronomy 1-3; 4:1-40; 4:41-43; 4:44-5:1; 5:2-11:32; 12-25; 26; 27-31; 34; 32 and 33'
(O'Brien 1995:95).
568
the majority of scholars identified Deuteronomy as the book referred to in 2 Kings 22-23.
Centralisation of the cult – that linked Deuteronomy and Josiah's reform – was regarded as a
distinctive deuteronomic theme. However, increasing scholarly awareness of deuteronomistic
redaction in Deuteronomy complicated the issue. 'The difficult nature of literary-critical
analysis in Deuteronomy and the diverse and sometimes contradictory results proposed have
prompted scholars … to adopt a more literary approach and to view the tensions and apparent
contradictions in the book as a mark of literary art.'220 The majority of historical-critical
scholars still accept the seventh century BC – and Josiah's reform – as the most likely date for
the origin of Deuteronomy. A number of scholars, however, defend a much earlier date for
the book. A seventh century BC authorship has been used within the historical-critical analy-
sis as a reference point for investigating the date of the pentateuchal sources. Scholars, fur-
thermore, propose that Deuteronomy has been modelled on the Ancient New Eastern treaty –
or covenant – pattern.
In conclusion, O'Brien221 states that the 'historical-critical or diachronic analysis of

Deuteronomy has continued to develop and be refined' during the later 1980s and the 1990s.
Fewer studies have been devoted to analysing the different layers of Deuteronomy; scholars
seem to be more interested in factors that affected the shaping of the book. Scholars also pay
attention to a comparison between Deuteronomy and the other law codes in the Pentateuch, as
well as Ancient Near Eastern law codes. From a theological point of view, the primacy of
God's election of Israel is emphasised, 'with fidelity to the law as Israel's appropriate re-
sponse'. 222
8.4 Chronistic historiography

According to Kleinig,223 'over the last decade the Chronicler's work has finally come into its
own after a century of comparative neglect. Many factors have contributed to this, but three
stand out as most significant: the shift from historical criticism to literary analysis, the shift
from redactional criticism to canonical analysis and the shift from thematic analysis to theo-
logical synthesis.'
Since the nineteenth century, the question of its historicity dominated scholarship in Chroni-
cles. These debates have been replaced by the analysis of Chronicles as literature. Scholars
220
O'Brien 1995:101.
221
O'Brien 1995:117.
222
O'Brien 1995:117-118.
223
Kleinig 1994:68.
569
now appreciate the skill of the Chronicler and his sophistication as an author in the creation of
a complex work of art. Scholars have been successful also – to a certain extent – to establish
the purpose of narrative units in Chronicles, and of the book as a whole. Researchers were
initially preoccupied by the identity of the sources of Chronicles and the redaction by differ-
ent writers. The accent has now moved 'from Chronicles as a product of various editors to the
canonical text of Chronicles as the work of a single author'.224 Scholarly interest, moreover,
has also shifted from thematic analysis to theological synthesis. A unified composition of a
single writer should reasonably be expected to represent 'a highly organized and concerted
theological statement'.225 Research on Chronicles has led to a new appreciation of the book
and its creator. It seems that the Chronicler – apart from being a skilful author – was also a
well-versed theologian who reflected on Israel's traditions, and formulated a theological syn-
thesis for this nation as a liturgical community in the Persian Empire. The composition exhib-
its unity 'with its own literary integrity, purpose and message'. 226
Initially, the Chronicler's depiction of the Davidic-Solomonic era was regarded an idealistic
fabrication and retrojection of post-exilic circumstances. However, a reappraisal of Chroni-
cles indicates that the book presents certain events more faithfully than previously assumed;
the Chronicler clearly had access to ancient traditions not preserved elsewhere.227 The Chron-
icler utilised canonical sources, especially Samuel and Kings, as well as extra-biblical
sources. Samuel was the major contributor to the account of David's kingship. There is a
tendency amongst scholars to doubt the existence of sources cited by the Chronicler. 228
McKenzie229 raises the question whether these are genuine sources or whether it reflects an
elementary device on the part of the Chronicler. Rofé 230 likewise questions the nature of the
historical sources in Chronicles. The Chronicler also made use of genealogical, military and
Levitical lists. However, this is no indication that the Chronicler did not introduce his own
interests. He made a few minor changes in narratives, particularly regarding his idealised
view of David and Solomon. His concerns are apparent in independent material and specific
omissions. His techniques of composition are thus more sophisticated than what he is nor-
mally credited for.231 Van Rooy232 poses the question, what do scholars know about the
224
Kleinig 1994:69.
225
Kleinig 1994:69.
226
Kleinig 1994:69.
227
Polk 1979:3.
228
McKenzie 1984:26-27, 71.
229
McKenzie 1984:26-28.
230
Rofé 2001:102.
231
McKenzie 1984:71-73.
232
Van Rooy 1994:163.
570
Chronicler's 'historiographic principles, the value of his sources and the way he used his
sources'.
Chronicles portrays a completely different David and Solomon to the presentation in the
books of Samuel and Kings. At a superficial glance it seems that the Chronicler repeats the
accounts in Samuel and Kings, 'merely omitting some original material and elaborating cer-
tain other themes'. 233 This is, however, not the case. All that is critical and unflattering about
David and Solomon – related in Samuel and Kings – have been omitted intentionally and se-
lectively. Both monarchs are depicted flawless – almost saintly. Additional material in
Chronicles – that does not appear in the Deuteronomistic History – deals almost exclusively
with the Temple. At the time when Chronicles was written – in the fourth century BC – the
significance of the David and Solomon tradition was fundamentally reversed. 234
Judah's predominance is prominent in Chronicles; this is expressed in David's kingship.

'According to Chronicles the kingship of David is the result of, rather than the reason for, Ju-
dah's special role.'235 The non-Israelite relationships are conspicuous in the Chronicler's ge-
nealogy of Judah; these "foreign" people are regarded as legitimate members of the tribe of
Judah.236 Based on information provided by Genesis 38, the integration of Jerahmeel and
Caleb into the framework of the Judah-genealogy is probably the Chronicler's own contribu-
tion. While he invariably constructed his depiction of Judah on tradition, he adapted and ap-
plied this tradition to his own time. However, as the older traditions were already firmly es-
tablished, his interpretation thereof was thus not with the intention to preserve and transmit
these traditions. He, therefore, recounts the past, while addressing the present.237 The Chron-
icler, consequently, introduces new material while, in some instances, there is also a link with
the contents of the Deuteronomic History – or, in other instances, no connection at all. 238
Zevit 239 denotes that 'post-exilic Israelites presented their genealogies in an official way that
would secure their rights and status within the soladity [solidarity] of Israel in its homeland'.
In contrast to the account in 2 Samuel 6 – of the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem – that does
not mention the Levites at all, 1 Chronicles 15-16 particularly describes the Levites, as well as
233
234
Finkelstein & Silberman 2006:222-223, 225.
235
Willi 1994:155.
236
In this regard, see discussions in Chapter 6, particularly § 6.2.
237
Willi 1994:148, 155, 158-160.
238
Van Rooy 1994:169.
239
Zevit 2001:631.
571
the Levitical musicians and caretakers. The intention of the Chronicler seems clear with the
added detail in 1 Chronicles 15:4-10, 'namely to secure the Levitical pedigree of the priestly
families mentioned in v. 11 by specifically identifying their patronymics with the earliest de-
scendants of Levi'. 240 Particular names mentioned in 1 Chronicles 16 represent different Le-
vitical families in the Second Temple Period. The superior status of the priests is not denied,
but the important activities revolve around the Levites. The considerable amount of attention
paid to the Levites is in accordance with the Chronicler's history as a whole – a history written
during the rebuilding of the Second Temple. The Chronicler illustrates the significant role in
the restored Temple cult and community conferred on the threatened Levitical families. 241 In
Chronicles the author makes it clear that Jerusalem and its institutions constitute a fundamen-
tal component of Israel's classical heritage; this is already evident within the genealogical pro-
logue. 242 The city plays, unquestionably, a pivotal role in the author's worldview. The status
of Jerusalem is established in pre-exilic history, and thereby positioned internationally within
the Chronicler's own time. Jerusalem was obviously promoted, as it was central to the social
identity, economy and religious life of Yehud. The Chronicler promulgates the value of the
Jerusalem Temple for all southern and northern Israelites. 243
The cult reform in Judah, carried out by king Josiah – 2 Kings 22-23 – has a parallel narrative
in 2 Chronicles 34-35; the latter is, however a "significantly different rendition" of what
claims to be the same event. Scholars argue that Chronicles simply reinterprets the narrative
in Kings and does not provide primary information.244 Ben Zvi245 emphasises that research
on Chronicles should 'clearly distinguish between the messages conveyed by a particular ac-
count, or portion thereof, and the messages conveyed by the book as a whole'. Keeping this in
mind, Ben Zvi246 'deals with theological and historiographical aspects of worldviews that ap-
pear in Chronicles'. In this regard he has the character Josiah in mind that readers of Chroni-
cles in the Achaemenid period visualised. The book implies – indirectly – Josiah's personal
worthiness and piousness, as well as the legitimacy of the cultic actions he had undertaken.
Yet, just as the purification was completed, an unmistakeable message of devastation is
brought.247 'The use of the motif of finding the book as an omen for disaster is consistent with
the tendency in postmonarchic discourse (amply demonstrated in prophetic literature) to link
240
Hanson 1992:71.
241
Hanson 1992:69, 71-73, 75.
242
1 Chronicles 1:1-9:34.
243
Knoppers 2003:307, 314, 326.
244
Handy 1995:252-253.
245
Ben Zvi 2006:90.
246
Ben Zvi 2006:91.
247
See 2 Chronicles 34:19.
572
the deserved punishment that brought the monarchic era to an end with hope for the future'.248
Observations on the narrative of Josiah in Chronicles raise a considerable number of funda-
mental ideological issues.249
During the time of the Chronicler, the term "asherah" meant neither the goddess nor the cult
symbol associated with the goddess. The distinction between these two perceptions became
obscured. The Chronicler mainly refers to "asherah" in the plural and probably understood it
to be an idolatrous object. References to the goddess Astarte are to be found in the books of
the Deuteronomistic History, wherein she is identified as a "foreign deity". A passage in
Chronicles – 1 Chronicles 10:10 – parallel to 1 Samuel 31:10, omits any reference to Astarte
(Ashtaroth), reading instead "the temple of their gods". There is the possibility that the
Chronicler did not know of the existence of a goddess Astarte, known in Israel. 250
Willi251 mentions that in the late Persian Period major sections of Israel's tradition – particu-
larly the Pentateuch and prophetic writings – had already been given canonical status.
'Chronicles is one of the most important witnesses to the canonical Scripture in the late Per-
sian period.'252 Chronicles, furthermore, reflects the function of prophets and prophecy in a
changing society, and possibly also the changing position and influence of the prophetic
movement after the Exile. 253
8.5 Prophets and prophecy

As explained by Nissinen, 254 'the word "prophecy" is deeply rooted in the vocabulary of reli-
gious communities, but also belongs to the academic language'. However, scholars entertain
different meanings in the application of the word. It is to the disadvantage of critical scholar-
ship to use a specific tradition – such as Israelite or biblical prophecy – as a criterion for com-
parative material. The noun "prophecy" is defined as "a statement that something will happen
in the future", particularly made by somebody with religious or magic powers. A prophet is
therefore 'a person who claims to know what will happen in the future'.255 Prophecy is thus
present when a person – through a cognitive experience – becomes the subject of the revela-
tion of a deity. The designation "prophet", furthermore, refers to a person holding a specific
248
Ben Zvi 2006:102.
249
Ben Zvi 2006:90-91, 95-96, 100, 102.
250
Hadley 1997:170-171, 174-175.
251
Willi 1994:151.
252
Willi 1994:151.
253
Van Rooy 1994:163.
254
Nissinen 2004:17.
255
Nissinen 2004:18.
573
position in a society, which implies a social role and function that distinguishes him from oth-
er members of the community. 256 Van der Toorn257 indicates that the biblical picture denoting
prophetic "guilds" or associations during the Omride period is ambiguous; these "guilds"
might have been religious orders comparable with monastic orders. Although prophets are
portrayed as "fervent religious men at the fringes of society", they also played a role as civil
servants.
Scholars have developed a new approach towards text analysis, denoting that biblical texts
should not be divorced from their literary and linguistic conventions, or from their cultural
environment and readers; texts should thus not be treated in isolation. 258 Throughout the past
century biblical prophecy played an important part in both Christian and Jewish communities
of faith. Biblical prophets were perceived 'as advocates of high moral and theological val-
ues'.259 Nineteenth century scholars created the traditional picture of the biblical prophet –
Israelite prophets were seen as inspired poets; this perception lasted for most of the twentieth
century. This traditional conception was, however, challenged, as not all prophetic material
in the Hebrew Bible is poetry. Likewise, serious questions were raised about the alleged
uniqueness of Israelite prophecy, particularly considering recently published prophetic mate-
rial in Neo-Assyrian texts. Accumulating evidence, therefore, suggests that Israel's prophets
did not actually differ from those of surrounding cultures. No consensus has been reached to
date on the challenges directed at the traditional view of Israelite prophecy. An important
point emerged from research on traditional cultures in recent years, indicating that 'both oral
and written literature continue to exist together for a long period of time and interact with
each other in various complex ways'. 260 Prophetic oracles that turned out to be true enhanced
the authority of the prophet; his disciples – most likely – played a role in the preservation of
his oracles. 261
Uffenheimer262 maintains that Israelite prophecy grew from the popular religion – as reflected
in the Book of Psalms, the Torah literature, and the wisdom literature – and was part of an-
cient Israel's culture. The Israelite prophet was thus moulded by internal social and cultural
forces; he also denotes that prophecy originated during the time when the Israelites were
256
Nissinen 2004:17-18, 20, 22.
257
258
Wessels 1996:190.
259
Wilson 2004:38.
260
Wilson 2004:42.
261
Wilson 2004:38-39, 42-44.
262
Uffenheimer 1987:7, 10, 14.
574
consolidated as a nation. On the view challenging the uniqueness of Israel's prophecy,
Bright263 contends that the Israelite prophets had no real parallel in the ancient world. Nis-
sinen,264 however, indicates that any definition of prophecy – being a scholarly construct –
could 'only be formulated in interaction with sources that are considered to represent the pro-
phetic phenomenon in one way or another'. In this regard 'the largest corpus of prophetic rec-
ords comes from eighteenth-century Mari, comprising fifty letters with prophetic quota-
tions'. 265 At this stage, these letters represent the closest parallel to biblical prophecy in cunei-
form literature. The letters follow a fairly regular pattern that applies to virtually all the let-
ters; it could thus be assumed that scribes followed well-known procedures in the letter-
writing. These letters, furthermore, afford some insight into the first stages of literary tradi-
tion of prophetic oracles.266 Van der Toorn267 mentions that research on Ancient Near Eastern
prophecy – biblical prophecy included – depends entirely on the testimony of written texts.
Records of Ancient Near Eastern prophecy 'have turned out to be indispensable for under-
standing not only the prophetic phenomenon in general, but also the cultural and conceptual
preconditions of prophecy in the Bible'. 268
Considering the extent of material deliberated in this thesis, as well as keeping the purpose of
this research in mind, individual biblical prophets cannot be discussed – albeit briefly. Some
of these prophets are, therefore, referred to only cursorily hereafter.
Apart from the announcements of disaster, Ezekiel – probably 'a central integrating figure of
the exiled priests'269 – clearly distinguishes between the Zadokites and the Levites; the Za-
dokites alone were allowed to come close to Yahweh, while the Levites – accused of the prac-
tice of foreign cults – had to bear the negative consequences of their sinful behaviour.270
Kohn271 mentions that, as a result of a new generation of scholars' effort to 'reconcile and
comprehend the challenging book of the prophet Ezekiel, … this ancient text has been given
new life in the many interesting, innovative and challenging studies that have been produced
over the last decade'. 'The book of Jeremiah is an important reference point in the study of
scripturization of Hebrew prophecy because of the various references it contains to the
263
Bright 1965:xv.
264
Nissinen 2004:25.
265
Nissinen 2004:25. See also brief discussion in § 2.4.
266
Schart 1995:75-76, 88.
267
268
Nissinen 2004:28.
269
Fechter 2000:697.
270
Fechter 2000:673, 686-688.
271
Kohn 2003:23.
575
fixation in writing of oracles received by the prophet'. 272 The book recounts four instances
where the prophet is said to have dictated, or written, a single oracle or a collection of oracles.
Scholars had assumed initially that much of the early material in the book should be attributed
to the hand of the scribe Baruch. Early Jewish tradition believed Baruch was the author of the
book in its entirety; modern scholarship, however, rejects this claim. An early collection of
Jeremiah oracles, seemingly, should be attributed to one or more anonymous authors; at a lat-
er stage another author probably reworked much of the material substantially to give it a deu-
teronomistic angle, and also added narratives concerning the prophet.273
Evans274 indicates that, although affinities between the deuteronomistic ideology and the
Book of Hosea could not be denied, such affinities should not be regarded as evidence to ex-
plain the cult reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Traces of certain ideas and language of Hosea
do appear in deuteronomistic writings. 275 Both Amos and Hosea were, however, not included
in the Deuteronomistic History and were probably considered too radical – particularly Ho-
sea's critical attitude towards the Monarchy – to be incorporated in this "historical" work.276
Apart from the Book of Ezekiel, the Temple does not particularly feature in prophetic books
of the Hebrew Bible; as far as these books are concerned, the Temple is regarded as a textual
feature. The Temple might also be a reference to Yahweh's heavenly or earthly temple, or
even a future temple. Texts in the books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi are indisputably
considered to be products of the Second Temple Period; the prophets Haggai and Zechariah
are associated with the rebuilding of this Temple. Textual material in Malachi refers to the
Temple a number of times; questions about altar pollution, and the acceptability – or not – of
altar-offerings, are dealt with. 277 Carroll278 denotes that 'the temple represented in Ezra-
Nehemiah is the ideological property and private concern of a pressure group determined to
be as exclusive as possible', and he reaches the conclusion 'that the second temple was not
widely accepted as the legitimate temple', and that scholars should question 'the use of the
phrase "second temple" to cover the Persian-Graeco-Roman period'. 279
272
273
Van der Toorn 2004:194, 197-198, 201.
274
Evans 1995:209.
275
Lohfink 1999:56-57.
276
Wittenberg 2007:121, 133-135.
277
Carroll 1994:37-38, 41, 43.
278
Carroll 1994:48.
279
Carroll 1994:49.
576
8.6 Documentation of Israel's traditions during the monarchical era
The Hebrew term for scribe, sofer, means, "to count". It is a Canaanite word, as well as a
loanword in an Egyptian text. The first biblical reference to sofer is found in the Song of
Deborah.280 Scholars are of the opinion that the presence of scribal schools in the time of
David, were linked to the crown. Epigraphic materials, biblical texts, and analogies to other
Ancient Near Eastern societies signify the existence of schools in the Israelite Monarchy; if
schools did exist, they would have been positioned in Jerusalem. Epigraphic and textual data
concerning monarchical Israel is, however, minimal and open to diverse interpretations. Evi-
dence for writing in the eighth and seventh centuries BC correlates with affirmation of trade,
skilled artisanship and centralised control, with Jerusalem as the locale of central manage-
ment.281 Literacy was limited to circles of scribes who were economically dependent upon
the rulers – the main role of scribes was thus to serve the rulers. 282 The highest post was that
of the royal scribe. 283 See also Excursus 3 regarding "scribes".
Greenberg284 denotes that numerous chronicles in the Hebrew Bible are of a mythological na-
ture. Of many stories there are two contradictory accounts in the Masoretic Text, meaning
that at least one version was untrue. Inconsistencies reflect – in many instances – ongoing
propaganda wars between Judah and the Northern Kingdom; an early version of a chronicle
was replaced by a later version. In particular instances – such as the Creation and Flood ac-
counts – earlier Egyptian, or later Babylonian influences, as well as parallel myths and leg-
ends from neighbouring countries, had an effect on the rendering of biblical narratives. As
the true nature of the biblical story is often disguised – particularly with the emphasis on
monotheism – it complicates the identification of the mythological source. Several narratives
described in the Hebrew Bible are, furthermore, contradicted by archaeological data. Cas-
suto285 indicates that in the Semitic way of thinking there was 'no reason to refrain from du-
plicating the theme [such as the creation narratives], since such a repetition was consonant
with the stylistic principle of presenting first a general statement and thereafter the detailed
elaboration', which is found in biblical literature as well as in other Ancient Near Eastern
280
Demsky 1971:1041. The Masoretic Text refers to the staff of the rps in Judges 5:14; the English Standard
Version translates the text as the "lieutenant's" staff. Holladay (1971:259) indicates that rps is a scribe (for ex-
ample a teacher of the law), writer, secretary, state secretary, secretary of the king, or a secretary for Jewish af-
fairs.
281
Jamieson-Drake 1991:12-13, 26, 155-156.
282
Horsley 2005:124, 127.
283
Demsky 1971:1042.
284
Greenberg 2000:ix-x.
285
Cassuto 1961:91.
577
literature. According to Silver,286 Mesopotamian legends – familiar to the early Hebrews –
were edited by later Israelites to emphasise their particular sacred teachings.
Coats287 mentions that Moses is described as a hero, in order to depict his leadership and to
present his ministry as a model for all subsequent leaders in Israel; David and his heirs should
therefore be in line with Moses. The Moses saga probably circulated amongst Israel's story-
tellers. Many scholars place the work of the Yahwist in the time of the United Monarchy –
even as early as David. Recent research, however, sets the work of the Yahwist in an exilic or
post-exilic period. The question is whether Moses fits in this late period when the kingship
had been subjugated. 'A conflict between the traditions about Moses and the traditions about
David seems to set these two complex bodies of narrative in opposition.'288 Different genera-
tions preserved accounts of the events at Sinai orally as their distinctive documents of ident i-
ty. 'At least two different forms of the story have been combined into an artistic whole to
form the Pentateuch.'289 The oldest form was probably under the influence of the Davidic
court. The history of the world was thus, seemingly, written by David's scribes, with the
Kingdom of David central.
Wittenberg290 denotes that the enigma of the primeval history rests in the distinction between
traditions belonging to an urban context, and that which relates to the concerns of the village.
Peculiarities in this history seem to contradict the claim that the author(s) was a royal scribe at
the court in Jerusalem, but that he should be located rather among the Judean "people of the
land". Kruger 291 mentions that some scholars view the narrative of Genesis 2-3 'as a para-
digm for the rise and fall of the king of Israel'. According to Dever, 292 the compilation of the
later literary tradition of the creation narratives was a 'complex, multifaceted process'.
Fritz293 indicates that, regarding the settlement process, the Book of Joshua – composed dur-
ing the time of the Monarchy – is of no historical value; chapters 1-11 are etiological sagas
intended to prove that the entire land was conquered by the tribes under the leadership of
Joshua. Halpern294 denotes that scholars disagree on the date and purpose of the books of
286
Silver 1974:9.
287
Coats 1993:111-113, 152, 191.
288
Coats 1993:112.
289
Coats 1993:152.
290
Wittenberg 1995:442, 449.
291
Kruger 2001a:62.
292
Dever 1997a:47.
293
Fritz 1987:98.
294
Halpern 1997:314-315.
578
Samuel. Is Samuel contemporary with the events it describes, or late fiction? Droge295 main-
tains that the discovery of the "Book of Law" – see also paragraph 8.3 – 'accords well with the
evidence for a dramatic increase in literacy in late seventh-century Judah'. It, furthermore,
signifies the purpose of the Josianic ideologies to serve the political interest of the royal court
for a united kingdom. 296 Ramsey297 denotes that certain narratives and poems – such as those
concerning the patriarchs – most likely 'originated as encapsulations of tribal experiences'.
According to Younger,298 extra-biblical evidence, which had been discovered by the begin-
ning of the nineteenth century, was not 'sufficiently understood to serve as a reliable historical
source'. Comparative studies were hampered by scepticism and suspicions. Early research
was, furthermore, troubled by errors in the reading and interpretation of the documents.
However, more archives and texts – including many West Semitic inscriptions – were discov-
ered that enhanced the comparative study of biblical texts.299
8.7 Exilic and post-exilic documentation, redactional adaptations and finalisation of

the Masoretic Text
'Editing was always marked and meant to be noticed'. 300 Editors maintained the original text
to which they were bound, but felt free to interpret and change it. They 'generally did not set
out to spoil the text they transmitted and preserved, but they regularly made it more complex,
meaningful, and difficult to understand'. 301 Interpretation comprises the rewriting of the orig-
inal text.302 Obvious discrepancies were not eliminated by the redactor, presumably owing to
his editorial authority that was exercised with the utmost hesitancy. It is not unlikely that
some of the original material was preserved and handed down in a written form; however, the
large number of inconsistencies in the Masoretic Text is an indication that data were transmit-
ted primarily in an oral mode. The content of the Hebrew Bible was thus, in the course of
time, enveloped in layer after layer of superimposed interpretation. 303 The Hebrew writer
probably borrowed different familiar mythological motifs, 'transformed them, and integrated
them into a fresh and original story of his own'. 304 In time to come the earliest traditional de-
tails of a chronicle were reinterpreted in accordance with the perception of later
295
Droge 2003:142.
296
Droge 2003:138.
297
Ramsey 1981:82.
298
Younger 2006:199.
299
Younger 2006:199-200.
300
Peckham 1995:382.
301
Peckham 1995:383.
302
Peckham 1995:365.
303
Speiser 1964:xxiv, xxxviii, lxiv.
304
Wenham 1987:53.
579
generations; for the editor it simply might have been a didactic, moral tale. 305 Ramsey306 de-
notes that there was a tendency to weaken mythical elements in the inherited tradition.
Lasine, 307 furthermore, indicates that, while some reinterpretations 'have an apologetic intent,
others are designed to create a paradigm of legitimate political purges capable of justifying
similar acts in the present'. Similarly, the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple was explained theologically by the deuteronomists by applying the category of mono-
theism. 308
According to Davies, 309 a composition is part of a canon when it is classified as belonging to

some collection, and preserved by copying until its status as a classic is secured; scrolls could
also be canons in their own right. Although the Jewish canon contains no extended myths,
omen literature or incantations, 'it does include extended historiographical and other narrative
texts, as well as unique compositions of prophetic oracles'. 310 It is necessary to acknowledge
the indispensable role of scribes – or even private individuals – in the canonising process.
Dempster311 mentions that scholars classically formulated the three-fold designation of the
canon – Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim – as the historical evolution of the canon; the closure of this
process was pushed into the second century BC, or as late as the second century AD. Schol-
ars arguing for an early date is of the opinion that canonisation was the result of aesthetic con-
siderations that influenced the final arrangement of the Hebrew Bible, rather than an uninten-
tional historical occurrence and arbitrary selection. It is therefore evident that one person, or a
compatible group, collected the component parts and arranged it into a coherent whole. The
Hebrew Bible, as an editorial work within the corpus of literature, thus implies the importance
of the arrangement of sacred writings. Scholars who propose a later date, argue that the ques-
tion of sequence only became significant with the arrival of the codex or longer scrolls. 312
Dempster313 discusses external and internal evidence for a tripartite canon that accentuates
sequence for Jewish Scriptures. In the initial chapter of each major division of the Masoretic
305
Gaster 1969:xxx-xxxi. An example is the narrative concerning the rivalry between Cain and Abel, resulting
in a murder (Gn 4). According to Vehse (1995:439-440), the anointment of Saul (1 Sm 9-10) should be classi-
fied as historical myth; stories – such as these – 'lend insight into history not by accurately revealing how things
happened but by suggesting how people thought about the things that happened' (Vehse 1995:440).
306
Ramsey 1981:80.
307
Lasine 1994:219.
308
Fechter 2000:693.
309
Davies 1998:9, 35-36.
310
Davies 1998:35.
311
Dempster 2001:19-21.
312
The content of the scrolls for the entire Hebrew canon is described for the first time in the Babylonian Tal-
mud; the Codex was used in Christian circles, and the longer scroll was used in Judaism (Dempster 2001:21).
313
See Dempster (2001:23-49) for a discussion of external and internal evidence for a tripartite canon.
580
Text extraordinary emphasis is placed on the Word of God. Explicit links connect these main
divisions with one another.314 'The broad divisions within the canon reflect not various ca-
nonical phases or arbitrary arrangements but thematic divisions based on various epistemo-
logical perspectives within Israel.'315 According to Dever, 316 responsible scholars today do
not question the late date of the final redaction of the Masoretic Text.
Lemche317 denotes that, as scholars are familiar with the viewpoint that 'the books of the Pen-
tateuch seem to be a collection of originally independent traditions or groups of traditions
which were preserved for some time and were subjected to a variety of reworkings, expan-
sions, and revisions in the process', in the same manner, 'other parts of the Old Testament
have been subjected to a similar process of redaction'. 318 Therefore, also, apart from the activ-
ities of the deuteronomists, 'the prophetic books, too, are the results of the conscious redac-
tional reworking of pre-existent traditional material'. 319 Although the Psalms are considered
to be excellent sources for the particular period in which they originated, their continuous re-
interpretation after their composition undermine their referential value; it is, furthermore, ex-
tremely difficult to date the Psalms. 320
Garbini321 indicates that an essential part of the Hebrew literature was created in Babylon dur-
ing the Persian Period. Although these Judahites obviously had close links with Jerusalem,
they certainly would have been influenced by 'a cultural make-up fed by daily contact with
the most creative currents in oriental thought'. 322 Jews in Egypt wrote in Hebrew about their
own roots. Most of the Hebrew literature thus developed in Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt –
probably between the end of the sixth and the end of the fourth centuries BC. The nucleus of
literature was thus created during the Persian Period; the literature of the court was replaced
by the literature of the Temple. 'The exile marked the pinnacle of anti-monarchic litera-
ture.'323 Major parts of Israel's tradition – particularly the Pentateuch and prophetic writings –
had already been given canonical status by the late Persian Period; Chronicles is one of the
most important witnesses to this status.324 Scholars do not, however, have sufficient data to
314
Dempster 2001:43, 45, 49.
315
Dempster 2001:51.
316
Dever 1997b:301.
317
Lemche 1988:41.
318
Lemche 1988:43.
319
Lemche 1988:44.
320
Lemche 1988:47.
321
Garbini 1994:184, 186.
322
Garbini 1994:186.
323
Garbini 1994:182.
324
Willi 1994:151.
581
advance a theory about the post-exilic society, and also, particularly, the function of prophecy
in that society. During the Persian Period prophecy was transformed to apocalyptic pro-
nouncement.325
While scholars, such as Van Seters, view the Sinai pericope – also attached to the Covenant
Code – as an exilic unit without any literary prehistory, Levenson 326 argues that the Sinai pe-
ricope is a redactional composition of which the pre-exilic Covenant Code is patterned after
the Laws of Hammurabi. Furthermore, the altar law of the Covenant Code is pre-
deuteronomic; 'sacrificial worship at an altar, not prayer, provides access to the deity … .
This conception, like the Covenant Code prior to its redactional incorporation into the Sinai
pericope, makes most sense in the pre-exilic, not the exilic, period'. 327
Montefiore and Loewe328 denote that, as the rabbis regarded the Hebrew Bible – particularly
the Pentateuch – as the Word of God in its fullest degree, no inconsistencies could be allowed.
The lower levels of this text were deemed no less divine than the higher levels. They proba-
bly adopted and expanded both these levels; all rabbinic quotations emphasise the Hebrew
doctrine that there is only one God.
Excursus 3: Scribes
As mentioned in paragraph 8.6, soferim, 329 scribes, as well as scribal schools, were linked to the
crown – probably from the time of David. The main role of scribes, who were economically dependent
upon the rulers, was thus to serve the rulers.330 The word sofer had a wide range of meaning that
changed in the course of time; it could denote several social roles. A scribe was generally a middle-
level government official, such as a secretary. Detailed information is available on the education, so-
cial position and roles of Egyptian and Mesopotamian scribes. According to the Hebrew Bible, 'the
chief scribe at the Jerusalem court was a high cabinet officer concerned with finance, policy, and ad-
ministration'.331 Ezra is a well-known scribe of the post-exilic time.332 Scribal activity by different
groups would account for the composition and editing of the text of the Hebrew Bible during the exilic
and post-exilic periods. Jewish literature of the Hellenistic Period testifies to scribal traditions. Ben
325
Van Rooy 1994:163, 178.
326
Levenson 2004:316-317.
327
Levenson 2004:317.
328
Montefiore & Loewe 1938:1-2.
329
See also footnote on sofer in § 6.5. Sophereth was the head of the family of Solomon's servants who returned
from the Babylonian exile to Jerusalem. Ezra 2:55 refers to Hassophereth, and Nehemiah 7:57 to Sophereth; this
name literally means "female scribe". The name might have denoted a profession, or the guild or office of
scribes. There is the possibility that this family owes its origin to a female scribe; females have been document-
ed in the Ancient Near East as scribes. A clan, also, could have taken on the name of its matriarch. The origin
of the guild is probably pre-exilic. Some scholars conclude that these people were originally enslaved foreigners
(see 1 Ki 9:20-21) (Eskenazi 1992:159).
330
Horsley 2005:124, 127.
331
Saldarini 1992:1012. See 2 Kings 22; Jeremiah 36:10.
332
Ezra 7:6.
582
Sira333 attributes knowledge and wisdom, as well as lasting fame, to the ideal scribe. Rabbinic collec-
tions – such as the Mishnah334 – refer to scribes as "early authoritative teachers", who probably had a
great influence on Judaism from the time of Ezra.335
Although scribes had to serve their rulers, Ben Sira and his scribal colleagues regarded themselves
and their work as independent of the rulers. According to them, their authority was derived from God.
They were, therefore, the professional guardians and interpreters of the sacred cultural tradition. Ri-
val factions among the aristocracy resulted in complicated relations between the scribes and the rul-
ers. Despite their political vulnerability and economic dependence on the rulers, it is thus conceivable
that a scribal circle would have taken a course independent of any aristocratic faction. Scribes were
primarily interpreters and teachers of the law. Behind the books of Ben Sira and Daniel, 336 as well as
the early Enoch literature,337 different circles of scribes or sages can be discerned. Ben Sira and his
followers served the priestly rulers in Jerusalem, while the Enoch and Daniel scribal circles – alt-
hough attached to different groups – were apparently alienated from the Jerusalem high-priestly
court. Notwithstanding that the Enoch circle 'stood vehemently opposed to the wealthy, that is the ar-
istocracy of the Judean temple-state',338there is no indication – in any form – of a resistance move-
ment. 'Daniel was produced by and for the circle of the maskilim'.339 The maskilim, however, resisted
the oppressive imperial forces. A fourth scribal circle appears to have preceded, and then joined – or
assisted the formation of – the Qumran community. Although these proto-Qumran scribes displayed a
positive attitude toward the temple-state and high priesthood as institutions, they were opposed to the
priesthood of the Hasmoneans.340 It thus seems that there were four different scribal circles in post-
exilic Jerusalem.341
Although not being part of the ruling elite itself, scribes were an indispensable component of the ad-
ministration. They possessed a resource, namely writing, which was unavailable to other people.
They accumulated and codified information and knowledge for the rulers, and developed their own
skills through education. Scribes, furthermore, created texts that would typically comprise the con-
tents of a library. The craft was passed on to their successors, who were taught, not only how to write,
333
For information on Ben Sira, see footnote in § 3.8.3.
334
335
Saldarini 1992:1012-1015.
336
The composition of the Book of Daniel is controversial. Scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centu-
ries dated the book to the Maccabean era (ca 166-142 BC), and also affirmed its unity (Collins 1992:30). There
are, however, many problems to date the book and its additions precisely to this period. For an elucidation here-
of, see Collins (1992:29-37).
337
The Enoch literature consists of a collection of traditions and writings composed between the fourth century
BC and the end of the first century BC. The literature was constructed in the name of Enoch, son of Jared, de-
scendant of Seth – third son of Adam (Gn 5:18-21). 'The Enochic corpus claims to be a series of revelations
which Enoch received in antiquity and transmitted to his son Methuselah for the benefit of the righteous who
would live in the end times' (Nickelsburg 1992:508).
338
Horsley 2005:140.
339
Horsley 2005:143. According to Collins (1992:33), Daniel Chapter 1 refers to Daniel and his companions as
maskilim (~ylkXm) in all wisdom (Dn 1:4); in Chapter 11 they were called maskilim (ylykXm) or wise teachers
(Dn 11:33). Holladay (1971:217) indicates that a lykXm is an unclarified term in the Psalms, suggesting a cultic
song, a passage for learning, or a wisdom song put to music.
340
The Hasmoneans, or Hasmonean Dynasty, were a family of high priests and kings, descended from Mattathi-
as – father of Judas Maccabeus. They were prominent in Judea from 165 BC until 37 BC, and ruled the region
between 142 BC and 63 BC (Rajak 1992:67).
341
Horsley 2005:127, 132-133, 136, 140, 143-145.
583
but also how to compose. 342 'Textual families or traditions are not identical with literary editions.
The textual families and traditions evolve through the accumulation of scribal errors, corrections,
harmonizing, parallel readings, etc. They are the result of the frailty of families of scribes copying
texts over centuries.'343
According to 1 Chronicles 2:55,344 clans of scribes – particularly Kenites – lived at Jabez.345

1 Chronicles 2, furthermore, links the Kenites to the Rechabites and, seemingly, also to the
Calebites.346 Kittel347 is of the opinion that the Rechabites were scribes. The person Jabez – who was
probably founder of the town – might have been a Calebite scribe.348 The importance of Hammath,
the native city of famous families of scribes, is accentuated by the Chronicler.349 Carter350 questions
the ability of a small, poor province – such as post-exilic Yehud – 'to sustain the literary activity tradi-
tionally attributed to it'. Nehemiah351 presents an idealised picture of Yehud – one that conforms more
to the late Judean monarchy that that of post-exilic communities. Scholars are, however, generally in
agreement that the post-exilic period is distinguished by a significant amount of literary activity; this
should thus not be questioned on the grounds of a small province or a small Jerusalem 352 – 'small and
relatively poor does not mean insignificant or isolated'.353
8.8 Monotheism
8.8.1 Synoptic discussion
Although the aspect of monotheism is particularly relevant for the deliberations in this thesis,
specifically considering the Yahweh-alone movement, monotheism is a scholarly field that has
been debated extensively, and therefore – as in the instance of a number of other matters in
this thesis – due to the extent of the numerous debates, it cannot be discussed more than mere-
ly cursorily.
Smith354 denotes that most scholars define monotheism as an indication of Yahweh's exclusiv-
ity, thus proclaiming that there is no god besides Yahweh. A second statement claims that all
other deities are "not" or are "dead". Becking 355 indicates that a monotheistic religion – such
as in the Christian tradition and Judaism – implies that the existence of only one God is
342
Davies 1998:18-19.
343
Cross 1998:159.
344
1 Chronicles 2:55: 'The clans also of the scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites and the
Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.'
345
For an elucidation of the place Jabez, as well as the person Jabez, see footnote in § 6.2.2.
346
See 1 Chronicles 2:50-55, and also footnote in § 6.2.3.
347
Kittel 1905:481.
348
Kobayashi 1992:595.
349
Eerdmans 1948:26.
350
Carter 1994:108.
351
Nehemiah 11:25-36.
352
Carter 1994:108, 111, 137-139.
353
Carter 1994:144.
354
Smith 2001:151.
355
Becking 2001:189.
584
acknowledged. A kind of henotheism356 might be observed in the world-empire ideology of
the Assyrian and Babylonian empires from as early as the first half of the first millennium
BC; the belief in one god – Ahura Mazda357– became the official state religion during the Per-
sian Achaemenid Period.358 Contemporary with the official tendencies of this period, Yah-
wistic monotheism probably developed from a henotheistic religion into a more defined mon-
otheism after the Exile.359
Gerstenberger360 questions the establishment of a claim to total exclusive worship of Yahweh

in the newly formed religious community of Judah, after the collapse of the state in 587 BC
and deportation of the people to Babylon. Although the theology of the Hebrew Bible seem-
ingly presents the religious belief of the early Israelite/Jewish people, the final collection and
compilation of the canon reflect the theology from the sixth or fifth century BC. The for-
mation of the exilic and post-exilic Yahwistic community was therefore an integral element of
this Judahite society. In time to come Judahites identified themselves by Yahweh. In his re-
flections on Gerstenberger's Theologies in the Old Testament,361 MacDonald362 mentions that,
although Gerstenberger argues that the whole monotheism of the early Jewish community is
fundamentally 'a great, impressively presented monolatry which arose in a situation of confes-
sion and at a few points is theoretically supported by statements of uniqueness verging on an
ontology',363 Gerstenberger's idea of monotheism also justifies the question, which nationality
and whose monotheism?364 According to Evans,365 despite the observation by scholars that
aniconism and exclusive monotheism are two marked features that distinguish the Israelite
religion from the religions of the Ancient Near East, it proves 'to be very elusive when one
inquires as to when and why they emerged in ancient Israel'. 366 Similarly, it is not clear when
and why divine images were eventually rejected.
The general idea amongst scholars is that an "official religion" is 'that religion which exerts
the greatest power in its relations with other religious groups within a given territory.' 367 It,
356
Henotheism: one deity is radically elevated over the other gods (Gnuse 1999:315).
357
For Ahura Mazda, see footnote in § 3.3.
358
Achaemenid Period: see footnote in § 4.3.13.
359
Ornan 2001b:25-26.
360
Gerstenberger 2002:215-216, 219.
361
See bibliography in this thesis: Gerstenberger 2002.
362
MacDonald 2005:163. See also Gerstenberger (2002:275).
363
Ontology: see brief discussion in § 4.2, as well as the relevant footnote in the same paragraph.
364
MacDonald 2005:164.
365
Evans 1995:195.
366
Evans 1995:195.
367
585
therefore, could be maintained that the intelligentsia employed by the Israelite Monarchy –
the court theologians and historians, as well as the scribes and priests – were thus responsible
for the creation, promulgation and maintenance of the official religion. It is conceivable that,
at some point, biblical Yahwism could be envisaged as the official religion. 368
Gnuse369 is of the opinion that 'the best way to characterize the emergence of monotheism is
to describe it as both a revolutionary and an evolutionary process … . The ultimate break-
through in Israel came in revolutionary fashion, yet at the end of a long evolutionary process
in the ancient world'. A significant development in the emerging monotheism came during
the Exile, while the implications of radical monotheism are discerned most effectively during
the Second Temple Period.370 'Israelite faith arose out of a complex and multifaceted mi-
lieu.'371 Its worldview was not in opposition to the values of the Ancient Near East, but exist-
ing ideas and old beliefs were gradually moulded – consciously and unconsciously – into a
new pattern.372 Gnuse373 theorises, furthermore, that the monotheistic revolution is still ongo-
ing and that the implications of this religion 'are unfolding still in our own age.'
Becking374 mentions that, by both Jews and Christians, the religion of the ancient Israelites
traditionally has been construed 'as a monotheistic cult devoid of images', however, the He-
brew Bible testifies that the Israelites worshipped deities other than Yahweh; veneration of
gods, such as Asherah, Astarte, Ba‛al and the Queen of Heaven, are mentioned. Evidence
from Assyrian texts seems to indicate that iconic polytheism was a feature of the state religion
in Northern Israel. Yet, various analyses of possible evidence from Mesopotamia yield nei-
ther positive nor negative results in this connection.375 A number of scholars, however, ar-
gued that, by virtue of its monotheistic faith, Israel radically divorced itself from the value
systems of the ancient world; this view has been subjected to much criticism. Notwithstand-
ing, despite being confronted by the local Canaanite culture, the reconstruction of old ideolo-
gies enabled Israel to sustain a separate identity and they thus remained as a distinct people
even in the Diaspora after the Babylonian exile. 376
368
Berlinerblau 1996:30, 33.
369
Gnuse 1997:7, 130.
370
Gnuse 1997:269. Second Temple Period: 539 BC - AD 70.
371
Gnuse 1987:132.
372
Gnuse 1987:132.
373
Gnuse 1997:275.
374
Becking 1997:157.
375
Becking 1997:157, 167, 171.
376
Gnuse 1987:127-128, 132-133.
586
Gnuse377 denotes that historical models that considered Israelites as outsiders who invaded
Palestine, strengthened the idea that a new Israelite religion stood opposed to Canaanite val-
ues. New scholarly paradigms, however, 'stress gradual, evolutionary origins for political
identity and monotheistic faith', 378 emphasising continuity with surrounding cultures, rather
than being in opposition to them. Scholars now perceive Israelite monotheism as a minority
movement in the pre-exilic period up to the Babylonian exile. Pre-exilic syncretism of Yah-
wism and Baalism might have been the normal religious experience of the people; the religion
of the Israelites thus being naturally syncretistic and not a "worn out" version of an earlier, so-
called pure, Yahwism. A number of scholars now pay more attention to the appearance of
Canaanite elements in the Yahwistic faith. Scholars are now also 'willing to look at all the
information in a new way, especially the biblical texts'. 379 A simple set of beliefs did not
evolve into monotheism. The Israelites 'inherited a complex set of ideas, … and they amal-
gamated them into their own distinctive worldview'. 380 While some theologians characterise
monotheism as a movement conducive to human equality and to social values, other scholars
postulate that monotheism has been administered to justify and legitimise the institution of
slavery and the radical subordination of women. 381
Gnuse382 discusses a 'contemporary evolutionary theory as a new heuristic 383 model for the
socioscientific method in biblical studies'. He mentions that a number of scientists proposed a
new thesis called punctuated equilibria. 384 On the question whether it is possible to use this
new theory to deliberate phenomena in the social sciences, Gnuse 385 is of the opinion that, in a
limited way, it has heuristic value. With the application of this model, scholars might be able
to discuss religious developments in Israel, particularly regarding the rise of monotheism.
The model of Israel's religious development is, in several ways, analogous to the model of
punctuated equilibria. 386
377
Gnuse 1994:894, 896, 898-900.
378
Gnuse 1994:896.
379
Gnuse 2007:79.
380
Gnuse 2007:79.
381
Gnuse 2007:79-80.
382
Gnuse 1990:405. See Gnuse (1990:405-428) for the discussion of this model.
383
According to Wehmeier (2005:701), 'Heuristic teaching or education encourages you to learn by discovering
things for yourself.'
384
Regarding punctuated equilibria, a number of scientists 'propose that evolution does not result from the
buildup of small genetic changes gradually over long periods of time; rather, there are long periods of stasis in
the life of a species, within which there may be some genetic "drift", but no change of sufficient magnitude to
initiate a new species. This long period of stasis is punctuated by a short but rapid evolutionary development in
which a new species arises that may displace the ancestral species' (Gnuse 1990:408-409).
385
Gnuse 1990:413, 422, 425.
386
The punctuated equilibria theory 'enables us to describe phenomena by a model that more or less conforms to
what we observe' (Gnuse 1990:413).
587
Excursus 4: Akhenaten monotheism
The Egyptian pharaoh, Amenhotep IV, took on the name Akhenaten387 early in his reign.388 He intro-
duced a revolutionary period in the Egyptian history, often called the Amarna Interlude. During his
rule he initiated a new art style, and elevated the cult of the sun disc, the Aten. Akhenaten's forbearer,
Amenhotep III, recognised the growing power of the priesthood of Amun;389 it was Akhenaten who
took the matter further with the introduction of 'a new monotheistic cult of sun-worship that was in-
carnate in the sun's disc, the Aten'. 390 He also built a new city Akhetaten391 for his god.
Stiebing392 mentions that many scholars perceive Akhenaten's new religion as a monotheistic faith
similar to the later Judaism, Christianity and Islam; some scholars have even claimed that this faith
influenced the development of Israelite monotheism. Gnuse393 denotes that a type of "intolerant mono-
theism" was created, and as a proto-monotheism inspired by Akhenaten for political reasons. He
probably equated himself with the Aten. Scholars observe a similarity in the monotheistic doctrine of
Moses and that of Akhenaten.394 According to Cornelius,395 Akhenaten created a police state, system-
atically destroying images of deities. Common elements of Egyptian religion – iconography and my-
thology – were replaced by the new aniconism. His god, as the sun disc, was omnipresent.
Cathcart396 is of the opinion that the linking of pharaoh Akhenaten to the founding of the first mono-
theistic faith is ambiguous; the cult of Aten probably developed in the time of his father, Amenhotep
III397 – thus before Amenhotep IV, Akhenaten, had come to the throne.
According to De Moor,398 'the religion of Akhenaten creates an impression of bloodless frigidity, it

resembles nothing more than a queer kind of science'. He denotes that the monotheistic revolution of
Akhenaten set in motion a counter-movement that declared that all gods were only the manifestations
of one god, Amun-Re. This action had far-reaching theological implications; a crisis of polytheism
echoed all over the ancient world. Letters from Amarna and the vassals in Canaan indicate that,
whereas it was customary for the vassals to include good wishes in the name of Amun in their letters,
they did not mention this deity anymore, and also refrained from praising Aten.399
387
See also § 3.6, and the relevant footnote in the same paragraph.
388
Akhenaten reigned 1350-1334 BC, during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Clayton 1994:120).
389
During the Eleventh Dynasty – 2134-1991 BC (Clayton 1994:72) – Amun was equated with the sun god Re;
he was also established as the city god of Thebes and the state god of a reunified Egypt. The ram was his sacred
animal. In Jeremiah 46:25 the deity Amun is referred to in an oracle against Egypt. Amun is the only Egyptian
deity mentioned by name within this context (Assmann 1999:29, 31).
390
Clayton 1994:121.
391
Also spelled Akhetaton, and later known as El-Amarna.
392
Stiebing 1983:7.
393
Gnuse 2007:84-86.
394
Finegan 1998:231.
395
Cornelius 1997b:29-30.
396
Cathcart 1997:84-85.
397
Amenhotep III was one of the great kings of ancient Egypt. Scholars discovered that the name of Amenhotep
III had been deliberately defaced at the temple of Karnak; it was done in such a way that the name Amun in the
cartouche had been damaged (Cathcart 1997:85). For further particulars on Cathcart's argument, see Cathcart
(1997:84-85). For information on the damaging and erasing of a pharaoh's cartouche, see the relevant footnote
in § 2.7.
398
De Moor 1997:44.
399
De Moor 1997:68-69, 99-100.
588
Despite refraining from any reference to the Aten, one of the Amarna letters contains a short hymn
exhibiting that Akhenaten's theology had been preserved in a Babylonian translation.400 The longest
copy of the Hymn to the Aten was inscribed in the tomb of Ay – private secretary and chief official of
the king – at Amarna. Aten is called the universal and beneficent "sole god".401 Dion402 argues that
'elements from the Amarna sun-god literary tradition', as well as symbols and phrases typical of An-
cient Near Eastern storm gods, have been blended harmoniously into Psalm 104 by the psalmist.
8.8.2 Marginal groups and their influence on the establishment and maintaining of
exilic and post-exilic monotheism
In accordance with my hypothesis, I postulate that marginal and minority groups had an influ-
ence – to a great extent – on the establishment of an exilic and post-exilic Yahweh-alone
monotheism. In Chapter 6, I identify marginal groups that according to my theory – apart
from maintaining the pre-exilic Yahweh-alone movement – played a significant role in the
post-exilic period. Some of these former tribes and other minority assemblages – particularly
the Rechabites – were, seemingly, an important element concerning the continuity of Yah-
wism/Judaism after the Exile during the Second Temple Period. Some relevant post-exilic
groups, who apparently maintained a Yahwistic monotheism, are discussed briefly in this par-
agraph.
Becking403 indicates that for the period roughly between 600 BC and 400 BC, the Israelite
history is characterised by changes. 'Exile and restoration provoked a crisis in the Israelite,
Yahwistic religion.'404 The return from Exile, and the rebuilding of the Temple for a religious
minority 'had a great impact on the symbol system of the Yahwistic group(s) in and around
Jerusalem'. 405 The principal form of Yahwism before the Exile could be described as mono-
theistic, aniconic and directed at one central sanctuary. Judaism, which is well documented
from the middle of the fourth century BC, was not uniform in its character. Due to a scarcity
of evidence it is difficult to qualify the religion of the Yehudites – who worshipped Yahweh –
as either "still Yahwism" or "already Judaism". Yahwism and Judaism are not identical, alt-
hough they have much in common. 'Traditionally the exile is taken as the watershed between
the two forms.'406
400
De Moor 1997:69.
401
Finegan 1998:231.
402
Dion 1991:44. See also brief discussion of the similarity between Psalm 104 and the Hymn to the Aten in
§ 3.6.
403
Becking 1999b:1, 4-6.
404
Becking 1999b:4.
405
Becking 1999b:4.
406
Becking 1999b:6.
589
According to Niehr,407 although some texts of Deutero-Isaiah claim some kind of monotheism
in the Second Temple Period, exaggerating the role of Yahweh and denying the existence of
other deities, it 'cannot be taken as proof of the existence of monotheism in Yehud from the
Achaemenid period onward'. 408 Gods brought in by the Edomites and Phoenicians might have
been venerated. The cultic critique in the Hebrew Bible against the worship of deities beside
Yahweh is an indication that such practices did exist during the sixth and fifth centuries BC; it
is also likely that Asherah was still venerated.409 Stern410 denotes that archaeological finds of
the Persian Period reflect new types of clay figurines made in Phoenician, Egyptian, Persian
and Greek styles; the Phoenician cult was composed of a triad of deities. All figurines 'were
found only in areas outside the region settled by the returning Judaean exiles' 411 – no cultic
figurines have been found in the areas occupied by the Jews. He is thus of the opinion that
pagan cults ceased to exist among the Judeans in the Persian Period.
The Babylonian conquest of Judah did not reduce the population substantially; the inhabitants
of Judah were partly increased by – among others – Ammonites and Edomites penetrating in-
to the region. While the elite were exterminated or weakened, the productive potential of land
and people were maintained. Archaeological work indicates that the southern part of Judah
was almost totally destroyed, while the northern region of the tribe of Benjamin was more in-
tact. The majority of the Judean nobility and some of the "people of the land"412 were deport-
ed. The relationship between the citizen-temple community and other socio-political struc-
tures influenced the development and nature of the post-exilic society, which was, more or
less, in a permanent confrontation with the population of Palestine. 413
Most accounts of the Babylonian exile emphasise the aspect of restoration, hardly mentioning
pessimism and disillusion – or the rejection of all religious and moral principles – that were
found among Jews in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. The general feeling of the
post-exilic community was apparently that idolatry was one of the main reasons for the de-
struction of the Temple and the termination of the Monarchy. Yet, these people 'suffered
407
Niehr 1999d:239-240.
408
Niehr 1999d:239.
409
The goddess Asherah is explicitly excluded in the books of Chronicles that are dated in the fourth, or even the
second century BC (Niehr 1999d:240).
410
Stern 1999:253-255.
411
Stern 1999:254.
412
Scholars have various descriptions for the term "people of the land" – – such as, that it describes
the members of the post-exilic community, or that it designates the population in Palestine standing outside the
community – mainly Samaritans and inhabitants of Judah who were not deported (Weinberg 1992:68).
413
Weinberg 1992:37-40, 63, 67.
590
under the burden of the sins of previous generations'. 414 Advocates of strict monotheism
probably also would have been dissatisfied with their failure to convert all Israelites to mono-
theism; how do they explain that God seemingly abandoned his people. Many exiles appar-
ently adapted successfully to the Babylonian way of life, resisting Isaiah's call to return to Zi-
on. Apart from a feeling of despair documented in the Hebrew Bible, evidence of a Jewish
identity crisis is evident throughout the Persian Period. 415
Hanson416 mentions that the devastating events of the Exile clearly affected the religious life
of the early post-exilic Jews; some of the most fundamental principles of their Yahwistic faith
were called into question. The Zadokites continued with the theological and cultic beliefs of
their ancestors. The religious convictions of the Judeans were intimately associated with the
Jerusalem Temple. 'Recognition of the pivotal role of the Yahwistic religious symbol system
in the life of the nation, and specifically of the central religious significance of the Temple,
provides background for considering the effects of the destruction of Zion on the survivors.' 417
Oppression at the hands of foreigners and of rivals within the Jewish community – during the
Hellenistic and Roman periods – gave rise to apocalyptic movements.
Jewish sectarianism418 started between the fourth and the second century centuries BC. New
evidence throws light on 'dissenting religious groups and trends in the Second Temple peri-
od'.419 Internal diversification in Judaism found expression in the formation of sects, and
should be assessed in the light of the Babylonian exile and the return from the Exile. The Ex-
ile, and all that it entails, did not result in a religious reorientation searching for new forms of
worship, but rather 'in the emergence of an intensified dream of a future restitution of the age-
honored holy place and the sacrificial cult'. 420 Jewish communities in Judah did not change
their lifestyle, or their religious-cultic customs; these conservatives clung to their established
value systems. In the Babylonian community, however, 'a particular understanding of biblical
monotheism was cultivated'.421 These exiles reinterpreted their traditional values and rein-
forced a strict adherence to their spiritual heritage. The inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin,
who had not undergone the exile experience, were considered opponents of the returnees; the
414
Korpel 2005:136.
415
Korpel 2005:135-138, 144, 157.
416
Hanson 1987:485, 487, 489, 492.
417
Hanson 1987:489.
418
Wehmeier (2005:1320) describes sectarianism as 'strong support for one particular religious or political
group, especially when this leads to violence between different groups'.
419
Talmon 1987:588.
420
Talmon 1987:594.
421
Talmon 1987:595.
591
question being whether the latter should separate themselves from the "Palestinian" Judeans,
or whether they should agree to integrate them into their midst. The concept of sectarianism
does not necessarily apply to cases of internal cultic-political protest before 300 BC. Thereaf-
ter, Jewish dissent presents itself in the commune of the Qumran Covenanters. Attempts to
identify this group with any Jewish sect or religious stream of the Second Temple Period con-
nect them with the Essenes – this is currently the most widely accepted theory. 422
The origin of the Qumran community is still – after decades of study – the subject of diverse
hypotheses. The Damascus Scroll423 attends to matters that distinguish the sect from the rest
of the Jews.424 A dispute over the right of succession to the high priesthood seemingly pre-
cipitated the shift to Qumran. On archaeological grounds the commencement of the settle-
ment at Khirbet Qumran425 is dated to the early Hasmonean Period. 426 Scholars still debate
the issue whether the Essenes had been an organised group before their alleged settlement at
Qumran.427
Knights428 argues that it is worthwhile to analyse a scholarly proposal that the Essenes were
the descendants of the Rechabites – found in Jeremiah 35 429 – and that the latter were thus the
precursors of the Essenes. Although the ancient tribal asceticism of the Rechabites that pos-
sibly ultimately stemmed from the desert origins of Yahwism could be parallel to Essene
practices; not one of the published Dead Sea Scrolls, or any remarks in Philo or Josephus,
makes any reference to the Rechabites. A comparison of practices of the Rechabites and
those of the Essenes also seems to indicate that these practices are at variance with each other.
It, therefore, appears that the Essenes were not influenced by the Rechabites – or any biblical
texts dealing with them. Abramsky, 430 on the other hand, is of the opinion that the Recha-
bites, although not a revisionary sect as such, might – in the light of their social withdrawal,
discipline and belief – be regarded as the archetype of the Essenes.
422
Talmon 1987:587-588, 591, 593-596, 600, 604-605.
423
The scrolls discovered in the Qumran caves, include the Damascus Scroll or Damascus Rule. This document
is particularly rich in clues to the origin of the Qumran community; it is also significant for the dating of the
sect's beginnings. It is mainly a document addressed to the sons of Zadok, and consists of various laws (Vermes
1982:49-50, 142, 147).
424
See Collins (1989:159-167) for an elaboration of these differences and the presumed incentive for their emer-
gence.
425
Khirbet Qumran is a site on the western shore of the Dead Sea, bounded on the south by Wadi Qumran. The
uncovering of a building complex during excavations, as well as the discovery of scrolls in nearby caves, identi-
fied the site as having been occupied by the Essene community (Negev & Gibson 2001:420-423).
426
The Hasmonean Period is dated 142-37 BC.
427
Collins 1989:159, 162, 167.
428
Knights 1992:81-87.
429
Concerning the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35, see discussions in § 6.2.2, § 6.4 and § 6.5.
430
Abramsky 1967:76.
592
Knights431 denotes, furthermore, that some scholars have attempted to link the Therapeutae432
with the History of the Rechabites433 – the latter represents a post-biblical use of material
about the Rechabites. The Therapeutae also might have been connected with the Essenes.
Charlesworth,434 however, indicates that there are many dissimilarities between the life of the
Rechabites – as presented in the History of the Rechabites – and the Therapeutae.
Stallman435 mentions that reference to Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls 'is evi-
dence that this tribe was both highly respected and the subject of extensive theological reflec-
tion'.436 In the Temple Scroll they were, inter alia, considered to be one of the twelve tribes
and also formed part of the royal cabinet; the War Scroll promotes the Levites in the leader-
ship of cult and combat.
According to Lang, 437 the origin of monolatry – or henotheism438 – cannot be reconstructed

with confidence. Contributing factors to its formation might include 'rivalry between the
priests and prophets of Yahweh and those of other gods, … opposition of conservative no-
mads against Canaanite cult and culture'. 439 It was only by the ninth century BC that the in-
fluence of the monolatric idea is attested.440 Its exact aims are, however, difficult to grasp.
Although many leaders of the minority Yahweh-alone movement remain anonymous, they
could be called the founders of Jewish monotheism. During the crisis of the Exile, this small
but growing group demanded exclusive worship of Yahweh; monotheism was the solution to
their political crisis. Gnuse 441 denotes that 'only a small minority of pre-exilic Israelites were
developing monotheistic ideas,' and probably after several stages of evolution 'became con-
sistent monotheists in the Babylonian Exile'. The emergence of monotheism during the Exile,
or later in the post-exilic period, reflects – apart from the conclusion of pre-exilic Israelite
431
Knights 1992:86.
432
The Therapeutae (Greek: healers or worshippers) were a Jewish sect known only from the description in
Philo's treatise The Contemplative Life. They lived in a monastic community south of Alexandria in Egypt. Due
to their particular way of life Eusebius regarded them as Christians. They – for example – lived in deserted are-
as, spent all day studying scripture, fasted and composed psalms; male and female members lived separately.
However, although Eusebius' identification is probably incorrect, it gives an indication of Christian observances
and the continuity between sectarian Judaism and early Christianity (Ferguson 1990:896).
433
See a brief discussion of the History of the Rechabites later in this paragraph.
434
Charlesworth 1986:238.
435
Stallman 1992:168-169, 176, 188-189.
436
Stallman 1992:189.
437
Lang 1983:19, 54, 56.
438
See explanatory footnote in § 8.8.1.
439
Lang 1983:19.
440
The monolatric idea was advocated by the prophets Elijah and Elisha in the Northern Kingdom, and by the
reforms of Asa and Jehoshaphat in the South (Lang 1983:19). Asa ruled ca 911-870 BC, and Jehoshaphat ca
870-848 BC (Kitchen & Mitchell 1982:196).
441
Gnuse 1999:315.
593
religious speculation – contributions from anonymous philosophers, sages or theorists from
the Ancient Near East.442
Zevit 443 is of the opinion that at least some of the Yahweh-alone groups were Jerusalem Tem-
ple Levites. 'Its members would have included people driven by aggressive passion, some
gifted with the intellectual skills necessary to recast the past and the daring insight to reform a
worldview, others gifted with oratorical and organizational skills, still others with cunning
and political savvy, and all with a sense of teleological certainty and patience.' 444 From the
eighth century BC on the Yahweh-alone movement borrowed treaty forms, idioms and curses
from the language of Neo-Assyrian statecraft, and provided its members with metaphors and
images for interpreting Israel's past, present and future, as well as its relationship with Yah-
weh. This movement's eventual success could be contributed to its having the final say in the-
se interpretations. The legitimacy of other religions and cults was challenged by scribes from
the perspective of a Yahweh-alone covenant. During the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods
'under circumstances yet to be determined by historians, the worldview of the YHWH-alone
movement may have become particularly widespread among Israelites, even in their places of
exile'. 445
In Chapter 6 the Yahweh-alone movement is discussed, as well as the likely involvement of

the Rechabites with this movement. According to Van der Toorn,446 the Rechabites could be
regarded as one of the oldest families among the Israelites that worshipped Yahweh. Alt-
hough a minority group with an almost negligible influence, the Rechabites represented a si-
lent protest against the dominant culture in Israel. Their lifestyle 'subtly shifted from a ritual
resistance into a ritual self-assertion'. 447 Their symbol of resistance and religious convictions
later became an identity marker; yet, they should not be reduced to a phenomenon of social
resistance. The history of the Israelite religion is that of the interaction of various religious
groups and traditions – the Rechabites were one of these groups. They might have been
joined by others – not of Rechabite lineage – that submitted to their discipline. Those that
rejected this lifestyle lost their identity.
442
Gnuse 1999:330.
443
Zevit 2001:667, 688-690.
444
Zevit 2001:688.
445
Zevit 2001:690.
446
Van der Toorn 1995:248, 250-253.
447
594
The Rechabites, as a religious group, probably included post-exilic priests. According to
sources dealing with the Second Temple Period, they surfaced again as such a religious group
during that time. 448 Reference to them in rabbinic literature is an indication that they contin-
ued to exist in the Second Temple Period. 449 Pope,450 however, indicates that evidence is ra-
ther tenuous that they survived the Exile as a group. Pressure of circumstances during the
post-exilic period might have forced many Rechabites to change their mode of life. Accord-
ing to Jewish tradition, they entered the temple service by marriage of their daughters to
priests. They were seemingly also among the Levite singers and taken as first exiles.
Knights451 denotes that numerous rabbinic references to the Rechabites demonstrate their
concern that the promise in Jeremiah 35:19 452 should be fulfilled; according to rabbinic tradi-
tions, the Rechabites became incorporated into the Sanhedrin, or into the priesthood.
The Talmud453 indicates that the seventh of Ab454 was a special day for the Rechabites; they
partook in the wood festival of the priests and the people. 455 In Midrashic456 discourses457
characteristics attributed to the descendants of Jethro – Moses' father-in-law – are sometimes
applied to the Rechabites; the latter appear in some of these texts as an example of pious con-
verts. Particular passages in these debates could be followed only if the Rechabites are identi-
fied as from the lineage of Jethro.458 In the History of the Rechabites, the descendants of Jon-
adab son of Rechab – a collective biblical figure – are discussed. Parallels to this group are
pointed out by Nikolsky459 in the abovementioned Midrashic dialogues, as well as in works of
early Christian authors. Similarities with Christian writings suggest that the History of the
Rechabites is a fourth century Christian composition.460 From the third to the seventh century
eleven Christian authors mention the Rechabites.461 In some instances the Christian
448
Van der Toorn 1995:232, 251.
449
Frick 1962:727-728.
450
Pope 1962:16.
451
Knights 1993:243.
452
Jeremiah 35:19, 'therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall
never lack a man to stand before me' – thus always being included in the priesthood.
453
Talmud: see explanation in a footnote on Mishnah in § 3.2.2.
454
Ab was the fifth Hebrew month, and corresponds to July to August (De Vries 1962:486). See also page 2 in
the same volume.
455
Pope 1962:16.
456
Midrash: the traditional Jewish method of exegesis, and particularly the traditional presentation of the Law
(Deist 1990:158).
457
Midrashic texts found in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, dated the mid third century AD. This work
contains a lengthy discussion of Exodus 18:27 (Nikolsky 2002:189).
458
Nikolsky 2002:189-190.
459
For a detailed discussion hereof, see Nikolsky (2002:188-202).
460
Nikolsky 2002:185.
461
These authors are: Eusebius (260-340), Athanasius (296-373), Pseudo-Athanasius (fourth century), Gregorius
Nazianzus (330-390), Gregorius of Nice (330-395), Jerome (345-420), John Chrysostomos (347-407), John
595
authors refer to the Rechabites as ascetics. Jerome 462 views the Rechabites as a monastic
model. As this group purportedly observed unique customs that could be interpreted as ascet-
ic practices, it is not surprising that their popularity was heightened at a time when the Chris-
tian monastic movement was escalating. 463
Pope464 denotes that travellers – as late as during the twelfth century – found Rechabites in
various places. Benjamin of Tudela reported that he found a community of a hundred thou-
sand Jews near El Jubar in Arabia; they devoted themselves to study and to weeping for Jeru-
salem, abstained from wine and meat and gave tithes to teachers. During the nineteenth cen-
tury Pierotti stated that he met a tribe – calling themselves Rechabites – near the Dead Sea.
During the same period Joseph Wolff noted that he had found Rechabites in Mesopotamia and
Yemen.
According to Knights,465 scholars have agreed that the central chapters – chapters eight to ten
– of the pseudepigraphon variously titled the Story of Zosimus or the History of the Recha-
bites, could 'be isolated from the rest of the document and treated as a separate text in their
own right'. These chapters that are probably a late insertion in the Story of Zosimus, alone
merit the title History of the Rechabites466 – which is evaluated as an independent apocry-
phal467 composition from late antiquity. 468 The Greek version of these chapters is the most
primitive and was probably written by a Greek-speaking Jew, 469 redacted by a Syriac edi-
tor.470 Charlesworth471 denotes that chapters seven to nine of the Greek rendering constitute
the nucleus of the Rechabite text, and is an expanded exegesis of Jeremiah 35. Although the
document – in its present and final form – is Christian, it preserves more than only early Jew-
ish tradition, and 'contains portions of an otherwise lost Jewish document'. 472 Possible Iranian
influence on the "History" is strengthened by the recognition of numerous links with, and par-
allels between its Jewish core and the Persian Arda Viraf.473 Early Judaism was influenced by
Cassian (360-430), Nilus of Ancyra (died 430), Theodoret of Kyrrh (393-460) and the Chronicon Pascale (sev-
enth century) (Nikolsky 2002:202).
462
For information on Jerome, see footnote in § 4.2.
463
Nikolsky 2002:186-188, 202-204.
464
Pope 1962:16.
465
Knights 1995:324.
466
Knights 1995:324.
467
Apocryphal: 'not regarded as canonical, of dubious origin' (Deist 1990:17).
468
Nikolsky 2002:188.
469
Knights 1995:325, 329.
470
Knights 1993:239.
471
Charlesworth 1986:219-221, 232-233.
472
473
The Arda Viraf was composed sometime between the third century BC and the ninth century AD. The book
is a quasi-apocalypse (Charlesworth 1986:232).
596
all cultures it had contact with, and not only by Greek thought. Knights 474 suggests that
'verbal parallels between HistRech475 8,6 and Daniel 9 reveal that Dan. 9 as a whole is a
source of HistRech'. The latter text is explicitly related to the prophecy of Jeremiah concern-
ing the destruction of Jerusalem. 476
The Story of Zosimus – also known as the Journey of Zosimus – is identified by Nikolsky477 as
an early Byzantine Palestinian Christian story. In this chronicle, the monk Zosimus is taken
on a journey to observe how the "Blessed Ones" live. They dwell in an Eden-like land and do
not have to work for their sustenance. They describe their way of life to Zosimus and recount
the events that led to their arrival at their destination. Knights478 mentions that the inhabitants
of the Isle of the Blessed Ones 479 'claim to be the Rechabites encountered by Jeremiah in the
closing years of the Judaean monarchy'. The contents of the History of the Rechabites – in-
corporated in the Journey of Zosimus – is part of what the Blessed Ones inform Zosimus
about themselves; it is a narrative about a collective biblical figure, known mainly from Jere-
miah 35. The Rechabites' unique customs are enlightened in this text.480 According to
Charlesworth,481 'the author of the HistRech was influenced by the ideas related to the place
of the lost ten tribes'. 482 Knights483 observes that some scholars disagree that the Rechabites
should be linked to the ten tribes in the biblical tradition. He describes the Story of Zosimus
as 'one of those fascinating blends of Jewish and Christian writings from the early centuries of
Catholic Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism'. 484
Knights,485 furthermore, indicates that 'the Rechabites were seen as Jewish precursors of
Christian monks by the Church fathers'. In the first centuries Zosimus was a relatively com-
mon Christian name. The present Christian form of the document probably dates from the
fifth or sixth century. 486 Scholars have also suggested placing the History of the Rechabites in
474
Knights 1997b:423.
475
History of the Rechabites.
476
Knights 1997b:423.
477
Nikolsky 2002:185-186.
478
Knights 1997a:53.
479
Charlesworth (2002:228-231) denotes that Greek and other ancient poems and historical works describe a
distant island on which the Blessed Ones lived. For an elucidation hereof by Charlesworth, see the aforemen-
tioned pages.
480
Nikolsky 2002:186.
481
482
The legend of the place of the lost ten tribes was very popular in early Jewish literature; compare the Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs 9, 4 Ezra 13, and 2 Baruch 77 (Charlesworth 1986:240).
483
Knights 1997a:58-59.
484
Knights 1997a:64.
485
Knights 1995:342.
486
Knights 1993:236.
597
the first century Palestinian Judaism. The contents of the document could point to a late date
of composition 'given the apparent presence of various groups that called themselves Recha-
bites within late Second Temple Judaism'. 487 The purpose of the document is to argue that
divine commands should be obeyed and that God does answer true, faithful prayer. 488
As also mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, my theory is that marginal and minority
groups – especially those involved in the pre-exilic Yahweh-alone movement – played a sig-
nificant role in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh-alone monotheism. As indicated in
this chapter, so-called "historical" information in the Hebrew Bible is biased, with the main
purpose to actualise the tradition; the aims of the editors and compilers therefore determined
the outcome of the text. Unless revolutionary informative material becomes available, it is,
more or less, impossible to ascertain exactly what the course of Israel's religious history was –
particularly how, and by which group or groups, a strict Yahweh-alone monotheism was insti-
tuted during the Exile, and thereafter maintained in the Second Temple Period. Therefore, my
hypothesis as a possible scenario could be regarded as valid as any other suggestion.
In the discussions in this paragraph (8.8.2) – as well as deliberations in Chapter 6 – I endeav-

our to establish which group or groups adhered strictly to Yahwism. Although there are
sparse referrals to particular marginal and minority groups in the Masoretic Text, these refer-
ences link these people implicitly or explicitly to Yahweh. A number of the marginal groups
– as indicated in Chapter 6, as well as in Chapter 5, concerning the Kenites – were smiths.
According to passages in the Hebrew Bible, 489 metalworkers and artisans were 'numbered
among those of high status who were carried off into captivity by the Babylonians' 490 – and
were thus among the exiles who had to reflect on their new situation. I, furthermore, theorise
that the Rechabites – who were commended by Jeremiah for their firm obedience to the
commands of their ancestor Jonadab, and moreover were obviously members of the Yahweh-
alone movement – were also among the exiles, and instrumental in the establishment and
maintaining of an exilic and post-exilic Yahweh-alone monotheism. Persistent references to
the Rechabites in post-exilic literature – as pointed out in this paragraph – are an indication
that this group played a major role in the lives of the post-exilic Jews.
487
Knights 1995:330.
488
Knights 1995:342.
489
490
McNutt 1994:112.
598
It is significant that the Chronicler specifically refers to the Rechabites when he mentions 'the
clans also of the scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites and the
Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rech-
ab'. 491 These families – or guilds – of the Sepherites, inhabitants of Qiryat-Sepher, were those
that dwelt at Jabez.492 The important role that scribes played in the compilation and finalisa-
tion of the Masoretic Text – and thus also in respect of the contents thereof – has been fully
elucidated in previous discussions in this chapter.
8.9 Minimalistic or revisionistic views on the historicity of the Masoretic Text and
an Israelite nation
History-writing is essential to both archaeology and biblical studies, therefore historiograph-
ical matters that have come to the fore since the 1990s are fundamental to both disciplines.
However, fierce controversies are presently the most critical issue confronting these disci-
plines. Revisionism started on the archaeological front when several archaeologists in the
1980s lowered the conventional tenth century BC date of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer to the
early-mid ninth century BC. 'This initially harmless move precipitated a critical historio-
graphical crisis',493 because, apart from the fact that these monumental constructions had been
dated confidently to the mid-tenth century BC on stratigraphic and ceramic typological
grounds, it was also taken by leading authorities as a confirmation of the remark in 1 Kings 494
that Solomon built four fortified cities. This lowering of the date is still not accepted by many
archaeologists.
By the early 1990s more biblical scholars began to argue that there was no historical United
Monarchy or Solomon, and 'indeed no Israelite state before the ninth century BCE, and no
Judean state before the late seventh century BCE, if then'. 495 This controversy started with
Philip R Davies' argument 496 that "biblical" and "ancient" Israel 'were simply modern "social
constructs", reflecting the theological biases and quests of Jewish and Christian scholars, an-
cient and modern'.497 According to Davies' argument archaeology was the only possible
source of information, but due to the limitations thereof, an "historical" Israel was merely a
491
1 Chronicles 2:55.
492
Frick 1971:286.
493
Dever 2000:105.
494
1 Kings 9:15-17, 'And this is the account of the forced labour that King Solomon drafted to build … the wall
of Jerusalem, and Hazor and Megiddo and Gezer … .'
495
Dever 2000:105.
496
See in this bibliography, P R Davies, 1992. In search of 'Ancient Israel'.
497
Dever 2000:105-106.
599
remote possibility. Even more radical works498 than that of Davies were produced later. Lit-
erature on "revisionism" has since developed rapidly and debates have become exceedingly
acrimonious. Leading scholars are dismissed on the one hand as "minimalists" or "nihilists",
and on the other hand as "maximalists", "credulists", or even "crypto-fundamentalists".499
Dever500 indicates that, although few archaeologists respond to the revisionists' efforts to
write ancient Israel out of the history of Palestine, their 'ignorance or deliberate abuse of ar-
chaeology must not be allowed to go unchallenged', not being a real threat to archaeology, but
for the impeding of debates between two complementary disciplines. Mainstream archaeolo-
gists argue that, if they could distinguish Egyptians, Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, and
others in the archaeological record, an Israelite tenth century BC "state" – however modest –
could similarly be identified. Notwithstanding, Dever 501 is of the opinion that the ideologies
of the revisionists are rapidly becoming a threat to biblical studies.
Together with other revisionist scholars, Lemche 502 argues that, although some kind of entity
– called Israel – probably had existed in Palestine around 1200 BC, it was hardly the Israelite
nation referred to in the Hebrew Bible. Revisionist scholars suggest that a substitution of
terminology should be considered, 'instead of speaking exclusively about "Israelites", thereby
indicating members of the biblical nation of Israel, historians should speak about Palestinians,
i.e. the ancient inhabitants of the landscape of Palestine.' 503 In reaction to Lemche's various
assertions, 504 Dever505 states that he believes 'that some of the false presuppositions, oversim-
plifications, undocumented assertions and contradictions – not to mention the ideological
overtones – of the revisionist school will be apparent to the unbiased observer'. He perceives
that revisionism – in its increasingly extreme form – has become 'a classic example of the de-
constructionist New Literary Critical approaches now in vogue'. 506

As illustrated in the foregoing chapters of this thesis, the different disciplines of biblical
scholarship and archaeology are interdependent. A long oral tradition preceded the later writ-
ten and edited Masoretic Text, which was compiled within the framework of the background
498
Works by, inter alia, Keith W Whitelam, Niels P Lemche and Thomas L Thompson (Dever 2000:106).
499
Dever 2000:105-106.
500
Dever 2000:106-107.
501
Dever 1998a:39.
502
Lemche 1996:20.
503
Lemche 1996:20.
504
See Lemche (1996:9-34), for an elucidation of his views.
505
Dever 1996:36.
506
Dever 1996:36.
600
and preconceived ideas of the authors and redactors, and is therefore not historically dependa-
ble. Although neither biblical historiography nor theology can reach the full extent of its re-
search without the support of relevant disciplines, the Hebrew Bible remains the prime source
of information concerning the Israelite nation and its religion. It seems, therefore, appropriate
that this research is concluded with a brief discussion of matters pertaining to the compilation
and finalisation of the Masoretic Text.
Histories in the Hebrew Bible are compiled from a variety of written and oral sources. Narra-
tives, combined with chronology, portray political events and create the potential for the "his-
torical" reconstruction of the past. Biblical narrators were, however, ideologically biased in
the application of their traditions and sources, and wrote from a specific theological view-
point; historical memory adjusts reality to serve the present. The purpose of biblical narra-
tives was, in all likelihood, to answer questions about the relationship of people to the land
where they lived, to the ethnic group with which they identified, and to the religious myths
and rituals that were fundamental to their sense of identity – and not to "present facts". Histo-
riography – always being interpretation – describes and interprets past events from a distinct
point of view, thus leading to an ongoing reinterpretation of history; the reflected history
therefore differs from the reality.
Literacy was initially restricted to professional scribes, but with the development of the al-
phabet literacy spread to wider segments of the population. Scholars have established that the
time span of the biblical Hebrew literature tradition extended from at least the eleventh centu-
ry BC to the Persian Period. Many rabbinic legends developed to account for anomalies in
the biblical text. Foundations of modern historiography were laid in the Renaissance. The
intellectual climate of the seventeenth century had a particular impact on biblical historiogra-
phy; a growing literary-critical approach to the Masoretic Text ensued. Major developments
in the nineteenth century form the background for the twentieth century Israelite historiogra-
phy. The decipherment of Ancient Near Eastern languages unlocked literary remains of Is-
rael's neighbours that subsequently had an enormous impact on the interpretation and research
of the Hebrew Bible. The "Critical Method" of Abraham Kuenen – one of the leading biblical
scholars of the nineteenth century – is still regarded as an important literary-critical method.
Biblical archaeology developed out of an historical approach to the biblical texts, and during
the first decades of the twentieth century biblical studies and archaeology were closely inter-
woven, dividing later into several sub-disciplines. Israelite historiography currently
601
experiences a crisis; recent debates include the role of archaeology in the writing of a history
of ancient Israel – literature normally reflects only the life of the literati. A comparison of
archaeological data and biblical narratives eventuates in 'a fascinating and complex relation-
ship between what actually happened'507 and the "historical" chronicles in the Hebrew Bible.
It was only during the eighteenth century that scholars seriously attempted to 'differentiate the
component parts of the Pentateuch according to a theory of multiple sources or documents'. 508
In 1711 the German pastor H B Witter noted that the two creation accounts in Genesis are dis-
tinguished by the names Elohim and Yahweh. He was followed by other scholars with various
hypotheses suggesting different sources. During the nineteenth century these earlier theories
were coordinated by two German scholars, Karl Graf and Julius Wellhausen. They proposed
the classic chronology – or Documentary hypothesis – J, E, D and P;509 Deuteronomy became
the key element in this hypothesis. This theory has since undergone considerable modifica-
tions. The dating of the different sources is complex with various suggestions by scholars.
Scholars also proposed that the Holiness Code, "H", which is defined by the standard format
of biblical legal codes, to be considered a separate "theological trajectory".
The pentateuchal narrative portrays the traditions of a community for many generations, be-
fore it was recorded. At least two different forms of chronicles have been combined to con-
struct the Pentateuch, of which the oldest form was seemingly under the influence of the Da-
vidic court – probably written by Davidic scribes, with David's kingdom at its centre. Biblical
researchers acknowledge a significant Priestly redaction to the Book of Exodus. Scholars also
contend that the Pentateuch is 'a basic collection of traditions that was continuously supple-
mented … and later extensively edited by different redactors'. 510 The tendency among schol-
ars to date pentateuchal texts to the exilic or post-exilic times might be challenged by the two
amulets from Ketef Hinnom – dated between 725 BC and 650 BC. These amulets contain the
priestly blessing in Numbers511 and Deuteronomy, 512 with little variation in the text. It thus
seems evident that a continuous written tradition existed prior to the inscription of the amu-
lets.
507
508
West 1981:63.
509
J, or Yahweh source; E, or Elohim; D, or Deuteronomy; P, or Priestly source.
510
Van Dyk 1990:194.
511
Numbers 6:24-26.
512
Deuteronomy 7:9.
602
The Documentary hypothesis dominated the literary approach to the Pentateuch for more than
a hundred years. A new literary approach differs from former studies primarily in its interest
in texts as literary objects, rather than in the history of the text; its interest is thus in literary
criticism, rather than literary history. The "new" proposal makes it quite clear that the basic
elements of the Documentary hypothesis are not regarded any longer as valid. The main em-
phasis of the current research is on the latest layers or compositions of the texts. One of the
most obvious results of the debates the past number of years 'is the tendency to date the "pen-
tateuchal" composition not earlier than the Babylonian Exile'. 513 It is therefore important to
conceive that significant texts of the Hebrew Bible got their final profile in the exilic and
post-exilic times.
The "Redaction History"– a new hypothesis on the origin of the Pentateuch – perceives the
Pentateuch 'as a basic collection of traditions that was continuously supplemented … and later
extensively edited by different redactors', 514 while, according to the "Transmission History" of
Rendtorff, several blocks of tradition that were transmitted separately – mainly in written
form – were compiled by a redactor. Rofé 515 reaches the conclusion that the composition of
the Pentateuch obviously had been a 'lengthy and complex creative process' that seemingly
lasted from the twelfth century BC until the end of the Persian Period.
Scholars have suggested that "deuteronomic" describes 'that which pertains specifically to the
book of Deuteronomy'. 516 Although "deuteronomistic" is 'more general, to denote the influ-
ence or thought-forms associated with the work of the Deuteronomists and expressed more
widely and diffusely in the literature', 517 extreme diversity is concealed in contemporary
scholarly usage of "deuteronomistic" and related terms.
Scholars are generally familiar with the viewpoint that the deuteronomists were the develop-
ers of the Deuteronomistic History – the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. The
deuteronomists are conceived as creative writers, rather than historians; the Deuteronomistic
History, therefore, should not be deemed a reliable historical record. Some scholars argue
that deuteronomistic redaction could be found in prophetic books, as well as in the Tetra-
teuch; this has led to a tendency to associate the Deuteronomic School with the complete
513
Rendtorff 1997:56.
514
Van Dyk 1990:194.
515
Rofé 1999:130.
516
Coggins 1995:136.
517
Coggins 1995:136.
603
Hebrew Bible and has thus prompted warnings of "pan-Deuteronomism". The latter, which
'refers to the collection of various arguments for Deuteronomic redaction in or of diverse
books outside of the Deuteronomic History and Jeremiah' 518 has, however, been rejected.
According to a long scholarly tradition, the scroll – or "Book of Law" – found in the Temple
during the reign of Josiah, was assumed to be the Book of Deuteronomy. There is, however,
'no sustainable reason for this identification'. 519 Some scholars are of the opinion that this
book had been the result of a "pious fraud" promoted by the high priest Hilkiah and the secre-
tary Shaphan. Their intention would have been to convince Josiah that his reforms were in
accordance with the direct command of God, as revealed to Moses. The deuteronomistic law
code includes prohibitions against the practising of pagan religions.
If a deuteronomistic movement did really exist, the question is to what extent and in what
form. A movement – embodied in groups of supporters – is normally aimed at social, and of-
ten also political, change. It does not necessarily mean linguistic uniformity. Occurrences of
traces of certain ideas and language of Hosea in deuteronomistic writings, as well as docu-
ments, such as the "Book of Law", do not justify speaking of a "movement". Similarly, al-
though the actions of Hezekiah could have been supported by a movement, there is, however,
no information to substantiate such a deduction. Yet, during the time of Josiah, his reform
seems to have been 'an extensive movement of national, social and religious renewal'. 520 This
movement included nobility of Judah, some Jerusalem court officials, a large part of the Tem-
ple clergy, the ordinary "people of the land", as well as prophets and their circles of disciples;
Deuteronomy of that period would have been its most important text.
According to Person,521 a Deuteronomic School presumable existed that 'denotes a scribal

guild that was active in the Babylonian exile and Persian period and had its origins in the bu-
reaucracy of the monarchy'. Exiled scribal groups returned to Jerusalem with the responsibil-
ity to codify and preserve religious literature; this could, therefore, signify that the Deutero-
nomic School returned to Jerusalem with Persian support. The reconstruction of a scribal
school associated with a temple was in accordance with practices throughout the Ancient
Near East. The deuteronomistic tradition clearly envisions Jerusalem as the central sanctuary.
518
Person 2002:14.
519
Handy 1995:254.
520
Lohfink 1999:58.
521
Person 2002:7.
604
Scholarly debates the past decades on Deuteronomy concerning historical-critical matters
were initially dominated by classical questions on the historical origins of the book, as well as
the extent and form of the original text. Fewer studies have been devoted to analysing the dif-
ferent layers of Deuteronomy; scholars now seem to be more interested in factors that affected
the shaping of the book. The majority of historical-critical scholars accept the seventh centu-
ry BC – and Josiah's reform – as the most likely date for the origin of Deuteronomy. Re-
searchers are, at the same time, increasingly aware of deuteronomistic redaction in Deuteron-
omy.
The question on its historicity previously dominated the scholarship in Chronicles; these de-
bates have been replaced by the analysis of Chronicles as literature. Scholars now appreciate
the skill of the Chronicler and his sophistication as an author in the creation of a complex
work of art. Biblical researchers have been successful also – to a certain extent – to establish
the purpose of narrative units in Chronicles, and of the book as a whole. The book is now
perceived as a unified composition of a single author. Initially, the Chronicler's depiction of
the Davidic-Solomonic era was regarded an idealistic fabrication and retrojection of post-
exilic circumstances, however, a reappraisal of the book indicates that certain events are pre-
sented more faithfully than previously assumed. Apart from Samuel being his major con-
tributor to the account of David's kingship, he also made use of genealogical, military and Le-
vitical lists in his book. The Chronicler obviously introduced his own interests – particularly
regarding his idealised view of David and Solomon. All that is critical and unflattering about
these two monarchs – as related in Samuel and Kings – have been omitted intentionally and
selectively.
Judah's predominance – as expressed in David's kingship – is prominent in Chronicles. The

non-Israelite relationships are, furthermore, conspicuous in the Chronicler's genealogy of Ju-
dah; these "foreign" people are regarded as legitimate members of the tribe of Judah. While
he invariably constructed his depiction of this tribe on tradition, he adapted and applied this
tradition to his own time. The considerable amount of attention paid to the Levites in Chroni-
cles, is in accordance with the Chronicler's history as a whole – history written during the re-
building of the Second Temple. Although the superior status of priests is not denied, the im-
portant activities revolve around the Levites. Chronicles reflects the function of prophets, and
prophecy in a changing society, and possibly also the changing position of the prophetic
movement after the Exile.
605
While scholars entertain different meanings in the application of the word "prophecy", it is to
the disadvantage or critical scholarship to use a specific tradition – such as Israelite of biblical
prophecy – as a criterion for comparative material. During the nineteenth century scholars
created the traditional picture of Israelite prophets who were perceived as inspired poets. This
traditional conception was, however, challenged during the latter part of the twentieth centu-
ry, as not all prophetic material in the Hebrew Bible is poetry. Accumulating evidence – par-
ticularly published prophetic data in Neo-Assyrian texts – suggests that Israel's prophets did
not actually differ from those of surrounding countries. 'The largest corpus of prophetic rec-
ords comes from eighteenth-century Mari, comprising fifty letters with prophetic quota-
tions.'522 Uffenheimer523 maintains that the Israelite prophet was moulded by internal social
and cultural forces.
Concerning some biblical prophets, apart from announcements of disaster, Ezekiel clearly dis-
tinguishes between the Zadokites and the Levites; the Zadokites alone were allowed to come
close to Yahweh. 'The book of Jeremiah is an important reference point in the study of scrip-
turization of Hebrew prophecy because of the various references it contains to the fixation in
writing of oracles received by the prophet.'524 Although affinities between the deuterono-
mistic ideology and the Book of Hosea could not be denied, such affinities should not be re-
garded as evidence to explain the cult reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Both Amos and Hosea
were not included in the Deuteronomistic History; they were probably considered too radical
– specifically Hosea's critical attitude towards the Monarchy. Apart from the Book of Ezeki-
el, the Temple does not particularly feature in the prophetic books; the prophets Haggai and
Zechariah are, however, associated with the rebuilding of the Second Temple.
The Hebrew term for scribe, rps, is a Canaanite word, as well as an Egyptian loan word.
Scribal schools were linked to the crown – probably from the time of David. The main role of
scribes, who were economically dependent upon the rulers, was thus to serve the authorities;
the royal scribe was the highest post. Rival factions among the aristocracy resulted in com-
plicated relations between the scribes and the rulers. Scribal activity by different groups
would account for the composition and editing of the text of the Hebrew Bible during the exil-
ic and post-exilic periods. Jewish literature of the Hellenistic Period testifies to scribal tradi-
tions. Behind the books of Ben Sira and Daniel, as well as the early Enoch literature,
522
Nissisen 2004:25.
523
Uffenheimer 1987:7.
524
606
different circles of scribes or sages can be discerned. A fourth scribal circle appears to have
preceded, and then joined – or assisted the formation of – the Qumran community. Although
not being part of the ruling elite itself, scribes were an indispensable component of the admin-
istration. They accumulated and codified information, and developed their own skills through
education. According to 1 Chronicles 2:55, clans of scribes – particularly Kenites, also linked
to the Rechabites – lived at Jabez. Some researchers question the ability of a small, poor
province – such as post-exilic Yehud – 'to sustain the literary activity traditionally attributed
to it'.525 Scholars are, however, generally in agreement that the post-exilic period is distin-
guished by a significant amount of literary activity; this should thus not be questioned on the
grounds of a small province or a small Jerusalem.
In the Hebrew Bible there are many chronicles with two contradictory accounts. Inconsisten-
cies reflect – in many instances – ongoing propaganda wars between Judah and the Northern
Kingdom; an early version of the story was replaced by a later version. In particular instances
parallel myths and legends from neighbouring countries had an effect on the rendering of bib-
lical narratives. Apart from the biblical literature, repetition is also found in other Ancient
Near Eastern texts. Moses is described as a hero in the Hebrew Bible, in order to depict his
leadership and to present his ministry as a model for all subsequent leaders in Israel; the Mo-
ses saga probably circulated amongst Israel's storytellers. 'A conflict between the traditions
about Moses and the traditions about David seems to set these two complex bodies of narra-
tive in opposition.'526 Similarly, different generations preserved accounts of the events at Si-
nai orally as their distinctive document of identity, of which 'at least two different forms of
the story have been combined into an artistic whole to form the Pentateuch'. 527 The oldest
form was probably under the influence of the Davidic court. The history of the world was
thus, seemingly, written by David's scribes, with the kingdom of David in the centre. A dra-
matic increase in literacy in late seventh century BC Judah, accords well with the purpose of
the Josianic ideologies to serve the political interest of the royal court for a united kingdom.
Editors maintained the original text to which they were bound, but felt free to interpret and
change it; interpretation comprises the rewriting of the original text. The large number of in-
consistencies in the Masoretic Text is an indication that data were transmitted primarily in an
oral mode. The content of the Hebrew Bible was thus, in the course of time, enveloped in
525
Carter 1994:108.
526
Coats 1993:112.
527
Coats 1993:152.
607
layer after layer of superimposed interpretation. The earliest traditions were reinterpreted in
accordance with the perception of later generations. There was also a tendency to weaken
mythical elements in the inherited tradition. The catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple was explained theologically by the deuteronomists by applying the category
of monotheism. Biblical scholars classically formulated the three-fold designation of the can-
on – Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim – as the historical evolution of the canon. Many scholars are of
the opinion that canonisation was the result of aesthetic considerations that influenced the fi-
nal arrangement of the Hebrew Bible. It is therefore evident that one person, or a compatible
group, collected the component parts and arranged them into a coherent whole. In the initial
chapter of each major division of the Masoretic Text emphasis is placed on the Word of God.
Scholars currently do not question the late date of the final redaction of the Masoretic Text.
The essential part of the Hebrew literature was probably created in Babylon during the Per-
sian Period. Most of the Hebrew literature developed in Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt –
probably between the end of the sixth and the end of the fourth centuries BC. The literature
of the court was replaced by the literature of the Temple.
Most scholars define monotheism as an indication of Yahweh's exclusivity, thus proclaiming

that there is no god besides Yahweh. Although the theology of the Hebrew Bible seemingly
presents the religious belief of the early Israelite/Jewish people, the final collection and com-
pilation of the canon reflects the theology from the sixth or fifth century BC. Scholars gener-
ally perceive an official religion as that which exerts the greatest power – within a given terri-
tory – in relation to other religious groups. It could therefore be maintained that the intelli-
gentsia employed by the Israelite Monarchy were responsible for the creation, promulgation
and maintenance of the official religion. At some point biblical Yahwism, thus, could be en-
visaged as the official Israelite religion.
According to Gnuse,528 'the best way to characterize the emergence of monotheism is to de-
scribe it as both a revolutionary and an evolutionary process … .The ultimate breakthrough in
Israel came in revolutionary fashion, yet at the end of a long evolutionary process in the an-
cient world'. A significant development in the emerging monotheism came during the Exile,
528
Gnuse 1997:7, 130.
608
while the implications of radical monotheism are discerned most effectively during the Se-
cond Temple Period.
Although both Jews and Christians traditionally construed the religion of the Israelites 'as a
monotheistic cult devoid of images,'529 the Hebrew Bible testifies that the Israelites wor-
shipped deities other than Yahweh. Yet, despite being confronted by the local Canaanite cul-
ture, the reconstruction of old ideologies enabled Israel to sustain a separate identity. They,
however, maintained continuity with surrounding cultures rather than being in opposition to
them. Scholars now perceive Israelite monotheism as a minority movement in the pre-exilic
period up to the Babylonian exile. A simple set of beliefs did not evolve into monotheism;
the Israelites 'inherited a complex set of ideas, … and they amalgamated them into their own
distinctive worldview'.530
The Egyptian pharaoh, Amenhotep IV – who took on the name Akhenaten – introduced a
revolutionary period in the Egyptian history during the Eighteenth Dynasty, often called the
Amarna Interlude. During his reign he initiated a new art style, and elevated the cult of the
sun disc, the Aten, which was a monotheistic type of veneration of the sun. Many scholars
perceive Akhenaten's new religion as a monotheistic faith similar to the later Judaism, Chris-
tianity and Islam; some scholars have even claimed that this faith influenced the development
of Israelite monotheism, and also observed a similarity in the monotheistic doctrine of Moses
and that of Akhenaten. A counter-movement was set in motion that declared that all gods
were only the manifestations of one god, Amun-Re. This action had far-reaching theological
implications; a crisis of polytheism echoed all over the ancient world. Akhenaten's theology
had been preserved in a Hymn to the Aten; elements from this sun-god literary tradition, as
well as symbols and phrases typical of Ancient Near Eastern storm gods, have been blended
harmoniously into Psalm 104 by the psalmist.
During the period between 600 BC and 400 BC the Israelite history is characterised by
changes. 'Exile and restoration provoked a crisis in the Israelite, Yahwistic religion'. 531 Alt-
hough some texts of Deutero-Isaiah claim some kind of monotheism in the Second Temple
Period, the cultic critique in the Hebrew Bible against the worship of deities beside Yahweh is
an indication that such practices did exist during the sixth and fifth centuries BC. Most
529
Becking 1997:157.
530
Gnuse 2007:79
531
Becking 1999b:4.
609
accounts of the Babylonian exile emphasise the aspect of restoration, hardly mentioning pes-
simism and disillusion – or the rejection of all religious and moral principles – that were
found among Jews in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. Advocates of strict monothe-
ism probably would have been dissatisfied with their failure to convert all Israelites to mono-
theism; how do they explain that God seemingly abandoned his people. Apart from a feeling
of despair documented in the Hebrew Bible, evidence of a Jewish identity crisis is evident
throughout the Persian Period. The devastating events of the Exile clearly affected the reli-
gious life of the early post-exilic Jews; some of the most fundamental principles of their
Yahwistic faith were called into question. Oppression at the hands of foreigners and of rivals
within the Jewish community gave rise to apocalyptic movements.
Jewish sectarianism started between the fourth and the second centuries BC. Internal diversi-
fication in Judaism found expression in the formation of sects. Jewish conservative commu-
nities in Judah did not change their religious-cultic customs, but clung to their established
value systems. In the Babylonian community, on the other hand, 'a particular understanding
of biblical monotheism was cultivated'. 532 Inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin who had not
undergone the exile experience were considered opponents to the returned exiles. After
300 BC Jewish dissent presented itself in the commune of the Qumran Covenanters. At-
tempts to identify this group with any Jewish sect or religious stream of the Second Temple
Period connect them with the Essenes; scholars still debate the issue whether the Essenes had
been an organised group before their alleged settlement at Qumran. Some scholars have also
proposed that the Essenes were descendants of the Rechabites – found in Jeremiah 35 – and
that the latter were thus the precursors of the Essenes, or that they could be regarded as the
archetype of the Essenes. However, although the tribal asceticism of the Rechabites could be
parallel to Essene practices, not one of the published Dead Sea Scrolls makes any reference to
the Rechabites. The Therapeutae – a Jewish sect – might have been connected with the Es-
senes. Some scholars have attempted to link the Therapeutae and the Rechabites; there are,
however, many dissimilarities between these two groups.
The origin of monolatry – or henotheism – cannot be reconstructed with confidence. It was

only by the ninth century BC that the influence of the monolatric idea is attested. Although
many leaders of the minority Yahweh-alone movement remain anonymous, they could be
called the founders of Jewish monotheism. During the crisis of the Exile, this small but
532
Talmon 1987:595.
610
growing group demanded exclusive worship of Yahweh; monotheism was the solution to their
political crisis. Gnuse533 denotes that this small minority of pre-exilic Israelites 'became con-
sistent monotheists in the Babylonian Exile'. According to Zevit, 534 at least some of the Yah-
weh-alone groups were Temple Levites. He is, furthermore, of the opinion that during the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods 'under circumstances yet to be determined by historians,
the worldview of the YHWH-alone movement may have become particularly widespread
among Israelites, even in their places of exile'. 535 Van der Toorn536 argues that the Rechabites
could be regarded as one of the oldest families among the Israelites that worshipped Yahweh.
Their involvement with the Yahweh-alone movement represented a silent protest against the
dominant culture is Israel.
As a religious group, the Rechabites probably included post-exilic priests. Reference to them
in rabbinic literature is an indication that they continued to exist in the Second Temple Period.
However, pressure of circumstances during that time might have forced many Rechabites to
change their mode of life. According to Jewish tradition, they entered the temple service by
marriage of their daughters to priests. Numerous rabbinic references to the Rechabites
demonstrate their concern that the promise to the Rechabites in Jeremiah 35:19 should be ful-
filled; the Rechabites became incorporated in the Sanhedrin, or in the priesthood.
Chapters eight to ten of a pseudepigraphon – variously titled the Story of Zosimus or the His-
tory of the Rechabites – could be treated as a separate text and are probably a late insertion in
the Story of Zosimus. In the History of the Rechabites, the descendants of Jonadab son of
Rechab – a collective biblical figure – are discussed. Parallels to characteristics of the Recha-
bites are found in particular Midrashic discourses, as well as in works of early Christian au-
thors. Similarities in the latter writings suggest that the History of the Rechabites is a fourth
century Christian composition; from the third to the seventh century eleven Christian writers
mention the Rechabites. The nucleus of the Rechabite text in the History of the Rechabites is
an expanded exegesis of Jeremiah 35. The Rechabites were viewed as a monastic model; it is
therefore not surprising that their popularity was heightened at a time when the Christian mo-
nastic movement was escalating. During the twelfth century, and as late as the nineteenth
century, travellers have found groups – calling themselves Rechabites – at various places.
533
Gnuse 1999:315.
534
Zevit 2001: 667.
535
Zevit 2001: 690. See also § 1.1.
536
Van der Toorn 1995:248, 250.
611
In the Story of Zosimus – also known as the Journey of Zosimus – the monk Zosimus is taken
on a journey to observe how the "Blessed Ones" live. The inhabitants of this Eden-like land
'claim to be Rechabites encountered by Jeremiah in the closing years of the Judaean monar-
chy'. 537 The author of the History of the Rechabites was seemingly influenced by perceptions
related to the place of the lost ten tribes. Some scholars, however, disagree that the Recha-
bites should be linked to the ten tribes in the biblical tradition.
It is my theory that marginal and minority groups – especially those involved in the pre-exilic
Yahweh-alone movement – played a significant role in the establishment of a post-exilic Yah-
weh-alone monotheism. Although it is hardly possible to ascertain exactly how, and by which
group or groups, a strict Yahweh-alone monotheism was instituted during the Exile, I propose
that the Rechabites were at least one of the major groups that were instrumental in this rever-
sal of the Judahites' cultic affinities. The Rechabites, and a number of other marginal groups
followed a trade as smiths; according to the Masoretic Text, smiths were among the deportees
to Babylonia. These people therefore had the opportunity to promulgate their firm belief in a
Yahwistic monotheism, particularly in the light of the devastating effects of the fall of Jerusa-
lem and destruction of the Temple; the exiles had to reflect introspectively on the cause of this
catastrophe – which was obviously their transgression in straying from Yahweh. Furthermore,
the Chronicler specifically links the Rechabites to post-exilic scribes who played a significant
role in the compilation and finalisation of the Masoretic Text.
In conclusion, I wish to point out that biblical scholars and archaeologists are increasingly
aware of the arguments of revisionist scholars who state, inter alia, that there was no historical
United Monarchy or Solomon before the ninth century BC, and that the biblical Israel in the
Hebrew Bible even might have been a "social construct". Fierce controversies regarding his-
toriographical matters – essential to both archaeology and biblical studies – are currently the
most critical issue confronting these disciplines. Revisionism started on the archaeological
front in the 1980s. Literature on revisionism has since developed rapidly. Leading scholars
are dismissed on the one hand as "revisionists", "minimalists" or "nihilists" and on the other
hand as "maximalists", "credulists", or even "crypto-fundamentalists". Revisionists, further-
more, argue that the term "Israelites" should be substituted with "Palestinians", thus referring
to the ancient inhabitants of the land of Palestine. Scholars, such as Dever,538 are of the opin-
ion that the ideologies of the revisionists are rapidly becoming a threat to biblical studies.
537
Knights 1997a:53.
538
Dever 1998a:39.
612
CHAPTER 9
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
As also indicated in paragraph 1.5, each one of chapters 2-8 is concluded with a comprehen-
sive résumé regarding the discussions pertaining to the particular chapter; all relevant material
is summarised therein. Therefore I deem it superfluous to include an extensive résumé in this
final chapter. For an overview of this dissertation I recommend in paragraph 1.5 that the
reader should consult the different résumés at the end of each applicable chapter. The specific
purpose of this thesis is set out in paragraph 1.4, and the aim with this research is elucidated
in my hypothesis: that the Israelite God Yahweh was originally a Midianite/Kenite deity and
that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as the Rechabites, played a significant and
dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yahweh-alone movement, as well as in the es-
tablishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism – see paragraph 1.3.
I was motivated to do this research when I realised how many debates amongst biblical schol-
ars evolve around the question of the origin of Yahweh and the development of Yahwism. I
have since discovered that there is barely any field of research in biblical scholarship that has
not been extensively investigated. Notwithstanding, despite all the discourses in this field of
study, as well as in the other relevant disciplines, hardly any of the many questions addressed
to the Hebrew Bible have been answered. When I started this research several matters in-
trigued me, particularly the origin of Yahweh and the development of Yahwism; to what ex-
tent Yahwism was actually practised by the Israelites; what the Yahweh-alone movement en-
tailed; how it happened that a nation who obviously practised syncretism for centuries, were
converted to a strict Yahweh-alone monotheism within a relatively short period of time – as
far as I could ascertain, this question has not yet been answered. Furthermore, no clear-cut
decision has been reached by scholars regarding the origin of Yahweh, or to the rise of Yah-
wism culminating in post-exilic monotheism. It therefore motivated me to analyse the work
done by scholars in this field and submit – if possible – plausible suggestions relating to these
questions. Relevant proposals are incorporated in this chapter.
I soon realised that many problems confront scholars in this field of research. Numerous de-
bates the past decades accentuate the complexity of the origin of Israel as a nation, as well as
that of their Yahwistic religion. Some scholars link the origin of Yahweh to the
Kenites/Midianites, while other scholars propose that Yahweh evolved from an El-figure. No
613
two scholars are in complete agreement with each other concerning their distinctive area of
research. There are even a number of leading biblical scholars and archaeologists who negate
the events as described in the Hebrew Bible. It is clear that the religions and deities of the
Ancient Near Eastern peoples played a significant role in the religion of Israel, particularly
influencing the crystallisation of the Yahweh image and attributes ascribed to Yahweh. The
pre-exilic Israelites practised a syncretistic-type religion obviously brought about by their in-
teraction with surrounding nations. It is, however, not so easy to detect in the Hebrew Bible
to what extent the Israelite religion was influenced by other cults, or precisely how they prac-
tised their own religion. These and other problems are addressed in the relevant chapters.
The Hebrew Bible is not an historical book, and has, therefore, specific limitations to provide
so-called "historical" information; it has, for instance, no intention to relate how Israel origi-
nated, but rather why it originated.
The purpose of this research was not to merely repeat that which scholars have debated for
many decades, but to approach the problem of Israelite Yahwism with a different premise in
mind – as defined in my hypothesis – and endeavour thereby to contribute to biblical research.
My intention was to analyse relevant research material – particularly regarding biblical histo-
riography, the development of Israel's religion, and archaeology – and draw conclusions con-
cerning previous and current scholarly conceptions. To attain this aim I researched contribu-
tions from a wide range of scholars. This investigation, once more, indicates scholars' dispar-
ate views, and also how particular data are often interpreted at variance with the conclusions
of another analyst. Numerous publications have shed the light on more or less every facet of
the different disciplines related to biblical studies. Although scholars normally concentrate on
their specific field of research, it was my purpose to review data pertaining to various disci-
plines relevant to the Hebrew Bible, and thereby ascertain their mutual dependence – or not. I
wish to quote Dever1 who criticises biblical scholars for neglecting to make use of archaeo-
logical data as a powerful tool to illuminate the Israelite cult. Instead of linking the two rele-
vant disciplines, scholars either analyse biblical texts, or research archaeological information.
In my investigation I applied archaeological results – and information on finds – as support
for any theoretical conclusions; it is clear that biblical and related studies cannot be re-
searched in isolation. In this regard Boshoff 2 mentions that scholars suggest a variety of ap-
proaches to the religio-historical problems in the Hebrew Bible, all of which are 'to a great
extent dependent upon the results of other disciplines'.
1
Dever 2005:74.
2
Boshoff 1994:129.
614
Bearing in mind the extent of literature – and thus also data – available in both archaeological
and biblical studies, there is no possibility to consult all relative material, or to become ac-
quainted with the theories of all relevant scholars. I have endeavoured to take cognisance of
the views of many scholars who are specialists in particular facets of biblical historical and
religious studies, or in archaeology. I have come to the conclusion that early scholars – spe-
cifically those of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – played an important role
in the initial stages of biblical scholarship; some of their views are still regarded as valid and
of significance. As it was thus my purpose, with this research, to consult and analyse support-
ive material regarding various disciplines – particularly those of historical and religious bibli-
cal studies, as well as archaeological aspects – the extent of material deliberated resulted
therein that the volume of this thesis exceeds the normal length of doctoral dissertations.
In relation to biblical studies, the Masoretic Text remains the prime source for biblical re-
search. This thesis is, however, not a literary-critical analysis or text analysis; therefore, ref-
erences to biblical texts are only for the elucidation, or confirmation of specific arguments,
and not for analysing the particular text itself. Words or phrases are indicated in Hebrew
where applicable to illustrate an argument, or merely for informative purposes.
My approach to the various subjects in each chapter was with the premise that the Yahwist
tradition originated in the South, whence it spread to Judah and the North. Marginal southern
tribes – particularly the Kenites, and other smiths, such as the Rechabites – probably venerat-
ed Yahweh, and were thus instrumental in the transmission of Yahwism; their particular trade,
which involved long-distance travel, facilitated the spreading of their beliefs. Although the
majority of the later Israelites practised syncretism, these marginal groups sustained their
Yahwistic faith throughout the Monarchical Period, actively involved in a Yahweh-alone
movement. As the deportees to Babylon included smiths, the Rechabites were probably
amongst them; various references to the Rechabites in rabbinic – and later Christian – litera-
ture acknowledge the group's importance in post-exilic times. It is therefore reasonable to
assume that their strict Yahwistic monotheism would have played a significant role during the
Exile – and thereafter – when Judahites had to reflect on the reasons for their catastrophe.
The Rechabites are, furthermore, named as scribes, and could thus also have assisted in the
compilation of the Masoretic Text.
I hereafter briefly motivate the inclusion of the different chapters and discussions, which
thereby corroborates my hypothesis and substantiates the purpose of this research.
615
As mentioned previously in this chapter, archaeological data are regarded as of paramount
importance to research the various disciplines addressed in this thesis. Striking analogies be-
tween archaeological finds and folklore in biblical texts indicate that the actual remains of
early Israel that have been revealed, disclose a picture completely different from that which is
generally accepted regarding the origins and early development of the Israelite nation. The
Hebrew Bible, as literary source, is inconsistent and biased regarding the history and religion
of the Israelite people. Archaeology establishes the possibility for new images and a new
concept of history; it is in essence the support for any theoretical biblical research, and arte-
facts or ancient written sources may be identified with data in the Hebrew Bible, and thereby
enhance our understanding of the ancient religion. Unfortunately, of the enormous volume of
archaeological data that have been collected, it encompasses but only a small fraction of the
total evidence at a specific site. Furthermore, a considerable amount of assembled archaeo-
logical material is still unpublished.
Considering my argument and hypothesis that at least the mother goddess – and more specifi-
cally the Canaanite deity Asherah/Athirat – was a goddess familiar and accepted in the whole
of the Ancient Near East, it seems that, similarly, the god Yahweh might have been venerated
as Ya, Yaw, or Yah, over a widespread area of the Ancient Near East. In Chapter 2 excava-
tions at the sites of Ebla, Mari and Ugarit are discussed, where archives have been uncovered
that yielded thousands of tablets with texts – some dating as early as the third millennium BC,
and up to the fifteenth to twelfth centuries BC. These documents are particularly significant
therein that at both Ebla and Ugarit there might be references to a deity with a Ya, or a Yaw
name. The site at Ugarit, furthermore, yielded tablets revealing an alphabetical script close to
biblical Hebrew. These Ugaritic texts also evince certain cultural similarities with early Isra-
elite material and provide some background regarding the development of the Israelite reli-
gion. Substantial segments of legendary narratives, as well as mythological and ritual texts
provide information concerning, inter alia, the storm god Ba‛al and the head of the Canaanite
pantheon, El, as well as the deity Asherah/Athirat; the names of Ba‛al and Asherah appear
sporadically in the Hebrew Bible. Prior to the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, the Hebrew Bi-
ble was considered the leading authority on the Canaanite religion. Concerning information
supplied by the Mari documents – apart from prophetic texts significant for its relation to bib-
lical prophecy – a tribe that possibly could be linked to the Israelite tribe of Benjamin, as well
as numerous references to the habiru, has been identified in these texts; some scholars con-
nect the habiru with the early Hebrews. Movements of nomadic peoples are described in the
616
Mari texts and are important for the understanding of the Patriarchal Period; names corre-
sponding to those in Genesis have also been recognised in these texts.
More information on the habiru is provided by the fourteenth century BC Amarna Letters –
Egyptian correspondence with Palestinian vassals, as well as with Babylonian and Assyrian
rulers. The name habiru features prominently in these letters. Kings of city-states accused
each other of commissioning the habiru as mercenaries, thereby rebelling against the pharaoh;
the habiru were, seemingly, unruly, disruptive elements destabilising the social order. Like-
wise, a significant Egyptian inscription was discovered on the Victory Stele of pharaoh Me-
renptah – dated ca 1207 BC – which is the oldest known reference to Israel. This inscription
– formulated as a poem – mentions Canaanite cities, as well as "Israel". Since the nation Isra-
el was eventually composed of several groups it is not possible to know to which one of these
groups the inscription refers, but it implies that ca 1207 BC there was a group – or a people –
called Israel in Canaan; Dever 3 indicates that the word "Israel" is preceded by the Egyptian
determinative sign for "people", and not for "nation" or "state". Scholars have also identified
certain figures – depicted in reliefs on a temple wall at Karnak in Egypt – as Israelites. These
figures are connected with the pastoral Shasu in other wall-reliefs; some scholars identify the
Shasu with the early Israelites. Certain Egyptian documents refer to the Shasu as tribes of
Edom, and also connect them with Mount Seir and the land of Seir. According to these doc-
uments, it is thus apparent that both Edom and the land of Seir were peopled by Shasu; the
Hebrew Bible frequently links these two regions. Scholars suggest that the Proto-Israelites
may have been part of groups of Shasu and habiru.
Sensational discoveries on two pithoi at Kuntillet ‛Ajrud, dated ca 800 BC, as well as an in-
scription on a pillar of a burial cave close to Khirbet ’el-Qom – dated ca 725 BC – mention
"Yahweh and his Asherah". These inscriptions brought to the fore the significance of a con-
sort for deities in the Ancient Near East – and in particular for Yahweh. The engravings, as
well as miscellaneous drawings on the pithoi and pillar, have since their discovery generated
numerous debates and scholarly interest – particularly the implications of a Yahwistic poly-
theism. The phrase raises the question whether the Israelite God, Yahweh, had a consort, and
seems 'to suggest quite explicitly that Yahweh did have a consort'. 4 Many scholars agree that
these epigraphic finds, as well as supporting evidence – such as the Taanach cult stands – en-
dorse the view 'that the goddess Asherah was worshipped as the consort of Yahweh in both
3
Dever 1997a:43.
4
Taylor 1994:53.
617
Israel and Judah during the period of the Israelite monarchy'. 5 The popularity of syncretistic
Yahwism during the eighth century BC possibly influenced the prophet Hosea to appropriate
the idea and imagery implied by "Yahweh and his Asherah" and implement it in his theology
wherein Yahweh has a "wife", named Israel. Two cult stands excavated at Taanach – an Iron I
site – are lavishly decorated with figures. A nude female form is likely a portrayal of
Asherah, depicted with two lions and the sacred tree. An open space on one of the registers of
the one stand is flanked by two sphinxes. If the stands could be linked to the Israelites, as has
been suggested, the question arises whether this vacant space represents Yahweh, the "invisi-
ble" Deity, posed between two cherubim – thereby linking Yahweh and Asherah in a cultic
representation.
Scholars acknowledge that from the ninth century BC the Israelites venerated at least one –
and more likely a few – goddesses. These were personified by an array of figurines, by both
the southern and northern Israelites. Nude female figurines – popularly known as Astartes –
have been found at many Ancient Near Eastern sites. Available evidence indicates that pillar
figurines were part of the household cult and favoured especially by the Judeans. These figu-
rines are, therefore, one of the most significant sources for research on the Israelite religion.
The dominant female pillar figurine images could be linked to fertility.
Inscriptions in the ancient Hebrew script – dated approximately the sixth century BC – have
been discovered in a burial cave at Khirbet Beit Lei. Scholars have proposed that these in-
scriptions be read as veneration to Yahweh, who dwells in Zion. Two silver plaques recov-
ered at Ketef Hinnom, are two of the 'most important archaeological finds … shedding light
on the Bible'. 6 These plaques contain an alternate version of the well-known Priestly Bene-
diction of Numbers 6:24-26. Barkay and others7 date the inscriptions to the seventh century
BC, while other readings by scholars date them to the sixth century BC. As both amulets con-
tain the same text, it is a sure intimation that this text must have been meaningful and stand-
ardised at the period of inscription. These plaques thus preserve the earliest known citations
of biblical texts. The tendency among scholars to date pentateuchal texts to the exilic or post-
exilic times might be challenged by these two amulets; it seems evident that a continuous
written tradition existed prior to these inscriptions.
5
Hadley 1997:169.
6
7
618
Significant cult sites have been uncovered during excavations. Apart from distinct features at
cult sites, standing stones have been surveyed and recorded at numerous places. Although no
biblical text explicitly describes the cultic role of these stones, texts do report on standing
stones at a few sites. At Tel Arad – an important city on the border of Judah in the eastern
Negeb – excavations revealed an Iron Age Israelite temple. Its Yahwistic character is con-
firmed by regular Yahwistic theophoric names on ostraca, especially by those of Judean
priestly families. There is a striking similarity between the Arad temple and the Tabernacle in
respect of their proportions, which are identical, and although no agreement has been reached
amongst scholars regarding the reconstruction of the plan of the Solomonic Temple, the de-
scription of the Tabernacle links the Arad sanctuary and the Solomonic Temple. There is, in
addition, a distinct uniformity between the cultic accoutrements at the Jerusalem and Arad
temples. A large and unique series of inscriptions on ostraca have also been found in the dif-
ferent strata at Tel Arad; these ostraca 'comprise the richest and most varied collection of He-
brew inscriptions from the biblical period found up till now in one place'. 8
During the course of excavations at Tel Beer-sheba fragments of a large ashlar-built horned
altar were found. Aharoni, involved with excavations on the site at the time, assumed that the
altar was an indication of a sanctuary or a temple, as mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The
horned altar possibly could have been dismantled and the sanctuary razed to the ground dur-
ing Hezekiah's cult reform. The discovery of this altar is by far the most acclaimed archaeo-
logical find from this site.
Excavations at Tel Dan uncovered an altar, as well as various objects related to the cult.
Since the finding of an old Aramaic inscription – from the mid-ninth century BC – at this site,
debates have been ongoing regarding a phrase in this inscription. This phrase – on one of the
fragments found in the remains of an eastern wall – translated, reads "the House of David".
This expression caused a stir amongst biblical scholars. By the ninth century BC Judah's dy-
nastic name was "the House of David" – as now attested by this inscription; the figure of Da-
vid was thus firmly established at that time. While some scholars consider this phrase as a
'powerful witness for the existence of a David', 9 other scholars totally reject such a claim.
The excavated material mentioned briefly in the previous paragraphs of this chapter, is but an
example of what has been found. This should, however, be a clear indication of the
8
Aharoni 1981:141.
9
Ehrlich 2001:61.
619
invaluable information gained from archaeology that could be applied in biblical scholarship
– therefore substantiating the claim that biblical research and archaeology are mutually de-
pendent. The particular archaeological finds discussed in this thesis are relevant to support
my hypothesis, as well as to supply information applicable to this research.
As indicated in paragraph 1.5, since the discovery of innumerable extra-biblical texts, consen-
sus has been reached amongst biblical scholars that the mythologies and legends of the differ-
ent Ancient Near Eastern peoples had a great influence on the mythologies and legends as
recorded in the Hebrew Bible. It is, moreover, acknowledged that the pre-exilic Israelite na-
tion practised a syncretistic-type religion involving, inter alia, particularly some Canaanite
gods and rituals. Deities of neighbours were thus recognised and venerated. Attributes of
these deities had a notable influence on the specific image of Yahweh as perceived by the Is-
raelites.
I, furthermore, mention in my hypothesis – paragraph 1.3 – that I take cognisance of the sup-
position that the peoples of the various nations of the Ancient Near East continuously and ex-
tensively migrated from one place to another, thus spreading religious and other beliefs, influ-
encing one another. To establish this influence I deemed it necessary to be familiar with the
occurrence of a deity, or deities, with analogous names worshipped in different regions,
thereby establishing whether this tendency was a regular phenomenon and, thus, substantiate
my theory that a Yahwistic-related religion could have been practised elsewhere than only in
Israel.
In Chapter 3, I discuss the goddess Asherah – known as Canaanite Athirat – as well as synon-
ymous female deities; Asherah was evidently originally a West Semitic deity, who was, at
some or other time, admitted to the Mesopotamian pantheon. These deliberations pointed out
the different appearances of Asherah/Athirat at various pantheons, and with cognate names.
Consequently, I draw the conclusion that these multifarious appearances of one deity corrobo-
rate my theory that, similarly, the veneration of a Ya-deity – or deities with analogous names
– over a vast area of the Ancient Near East, is conceivable.
Scholars recognise the Asherah mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Ugaritic Athirat – or
Asherah – as being identical. She was familiar in ancient Israel as her name was linked to El
– also acknowledged as an Israelite God, El or Elohim. She was probably acceptable to many
Israelites as a goddess next to Yahweh-El. Since the discovery of the inscriptions – "Yahweh
620
and his Asherah" – the possibility of a female consort for Yahweh has been debated extensive-
ly. Scholars have reached a reasonable agreement accepting that Asherah in the Masoretic
Text refers to both an independent goddess and her wooden cult symbol. It has become clear
that the ancient Israelite cult made far more allowances in religious beliefs and practices than
admitted by the exilic and post-exilic editors of the Masoretic Text. Some scholars propose
that the queen mother – although she held no official office within the Judean and Israelite
monarchies – had the official responsibility to dedicate herself to the cult of Asherah, the
mother goddess.
Some mythical elements linked to the figure of Eve, led various scholars to conclude that a
goddess lies behind Eve. The mythical Lilith – with only one reference to the name in the
Hebrew Bible – has been associated with Eve; rabbinic legends refer to her as being the al-
leged first wife of Adam. The prophet Jeremiah attributes the catastrophe of the Exile to the
veneration of a goddess called the Queen of Heaven, who briefly appears in two passages in
Jeremiah. Currently, most scholars identify this deity with Canaanite Astarte. Judeans were
reluctant to abandon her – probably due to her fertility feature.
The major Ancient Near Eastern deities – particularly the storm, warrior and solar gods –
share common characteristics. The storm deity has a distinctive iconography. Ba‛al, the Ca-
naanite storm god, is depicted with a thunderbolt, and a spear touching the ground with
streaks of lightning at its other end. Lightning functioned as a weapon of Yahweh in his por-
trayal as Storm God or Warrior God. Although Yahweh acted predominantly as national God
of the Israelites, Ba‛al held a unique position among the inhabitants of Palestine – and thus
also among the Israelites. Attributes ascribed to Yahweh are similar to those of Ba‛al. De-
spite the absorption of Ba‛al traits by Yahweh, all indications are that the Judeans carried on
with syncretistic religious practices. As divine warrior, Yahweh is characterised with his
heavenly chariotry and entourage. Battles between Ancient Near Eastern nations were com-
prehended as battles between patron gods, leading to the ideology of a "holy war". The con-
cept "host of the heaven" originated from the metaphor of Yahweh as warrior. Astral deities
were not an unfamiliar phenomenon for the ancient Israelites. In the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is
indicated as Lord of the sun, moon and stars. The sun's chariot was his vehicle; the ancient
idea of a chariot of the sun was born from the perception that the sun is a wheel turning
through the heavens. Astral cults are prohibited in the Hebrew Bible; astral bodies were ap-
parently venerated during the reign of the Judean kings Manasseh and Amon. The Israelites
seemingly considered the sun as an icon or symbol of Yahweh.
621
Contact between the Israelite nation and the other Ancient Near Eastern peoples resulted
therein that all the features of the various deities were later conferred upon the Hebrew God.
The relationship between the God of Israel – Elohim – and the Canaanite god El, is to a great
extent centred upon the religion of the Patriarchs. The Hebrew Bible occasionally applies a
female metaphor to describe Yahweh or his actions; attributing female roles and metaphors to
"male" deities was not an unknown concept in the Ancient Near East. As indicated earlier,
legendary and mythical matter forms an integral part of the Hebrew Bible, and was thus also a
fundamental component of the Yahwistic religion of the Israelites; it is therefore evident that
the Israelites – be it in their veneration of Yahweh or of other deities – were basically influ-
enced by surrounding cultures and religions, and more specifically from the religious culture
of Canaan.
The outcome of deliberations in Chapter 3 substantiates my theory that a semblance of Ya-

veneration in various areas of the Ancient Near East was possible – and maybe even probable.
Knowledge of the Israelites' conception of Yahweh, and their particular syncretistic religious
affinities, contributed to my better perception of the development of Yahwism.
The main focus of this thesis is the rise of Yahwism, which subsequently culminated in post-
exilic monotheism. In the following chapter – Chapter 4 – various hypotheses of scholars are
deliberated regarding the origin of the name YHWH, as well as a possible interpretation of
this Name.
According to Exodus 3:13-14, Moses was the first "Israelite" to be confronted by Yahweh,
and was told by this god – who came from a territory that did not form part of the later Israel-
ite region – that his name was hyha rXa hyha, 'I AM WHO I AM'. God, furthermore, de-
clared that he was 'The LORD [Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'. 10 He later indicated to Moses that, although he appeared
to the Patriarchs as "God Almighty", 'by my name the LORD [Yahweh] I did not make myself
known to them'. 11 Janzen12 is of the opinion that 'the biblical narrative taken as a whole could
be read as an explication of what is in the name Yahweh'. The Name, as revealed to Moses,
mostly appears in the Hebrew Bible in the form of the Tetragrammaton, hwhy. The Hebrew
Bible refers to the Israelite God by a number of names, titles and epithets.
10
Exodus 3:15.
11
Exodus 6:3.
12
Janzen 1979:227.
622
From antiquity, until a number of years ago, the name of God was analysed mainly with the
purpose to determine the subjective perception thereof. Modern scholars approach the prob-
lem from a philological perspective – thus analysing written records with the aim to establish
the best reading of a text. The enigma of the phrase hyha rXa hyha, has intrigued scholars
for many decades. At the same time they endeavour to analyse the Tetragrammaton – hwhy –
and submit a plausible explanation for the word. One of the main concerns seems to be the
paradox of the word hwhy being an imperfect finite verb – probably from the causative stem,
hif‛il – and therefore, of necessity, an imperfectum of the third person, while the formula
hwhy yna – which appears frequently in the Masoretic Text – thus embodies a third person
imperfectum (hwhy) with a first person pronoun (yna) as subject – an unattainable construc-
tion. No consensus has been reached by scholars regarding the analysis of the word hwhy. In
accordance with Maimonides' reasoning, the true reality of God's existence cannot be grasped;
the Tetragrammaton therefore implies that God's existence is identical with his essence, which
is based on the concept of the absolute oneness of God.
Scholars disagree whether the original form of the name hwhy is an abbreviation of a longer
construct, or whether it is the extension of shorter forms. Various proposals have been ad-
vanced by scholars regarding the origin of the Name. In concurrence with my hypothesis that
Yahweh was venerated by southern tribes – particularly the Kenites and Midianites – some
scholars theorise that the Name originated in the South. Mowinckel, 13 for instance, suggests
that the original meaning of the name Yahu – as an explanation of the name Ya-huwa – should
be explored. Ya was a well-known Arabic interjection, and huwa the third person masculine
personal pronoun "he". Ancient North Sinaitic tribes could have worshipped their god with
the cultic exclamation yá-huwa – Oh, He. The abbreviated yahwa could thus be explained
from the accentuation of yáhuwa. According to an established custom in Egypt, the epithet
"One" – Egyptian "W" – was bestowed upon a supreme deity. Contact existed between the
Egyptian and Sinaitic tribes, such as the Kenites. The Egyptian "I am" – vocalised as
"Yawey" – possibly influenced the Kenite god Yāh to become Yah-weh, "Yah-One", with
monotheistic implications.
In view of my hypothesis, I therefore endorse particular scholars' proposal that the name
Yahweh originated in the South. According to the Kenite hypothesis, southern tribes
13
Mowinckel 1961:129-132.
623
venerated Yahweh before the Israelites did. A strong point of this classic hypothesis is the
recurring tradition in the Masoretic Text of Yahweh's geographical link with the South. 14 In
agreement with discussions in paragraphs 2.6 and 4.3.4, pertaining to certain Egyptian docu-
ments that refer to "Yhw [Yahu] in the land of the Shasu", my theory is furthermore substanti-
ated. As indicated earlier in this chapter, Egyptian records link the Shasu tribes with the
southern regions of Edom and Seir; thus, Yahu was apparently associated with those territo-
ries where the Kenites and related marginal groups roamed – the Shasu might have been
composed of groups such as the Kenites and related tribes. In Chapter 4, I also discuss epi-
graphic finds – particularly pertaining to Ya-related names – that have been recovered over a
large area of the Ancient Near East. These finds, therefore, corroborate my theory that deities
with Ya-related names were venerated over a wide region of the Ancient Near East. The
probability that Yahweh was worshipped by southern tribes – particularly such as the Kenites
– before the Israelites became acquainted with him, contributes to the possibility that these
gods with Ya-related names – or even a deity Yahweh – were also venerated elsewhere.
Arising from arguments in the previous chapters, the origin of the Kenites, and the Kenite hy-
pothesis, is discussed and evaluated in Chapter 5. The Kenites were a nomadic or semi-
nomadic tribe of coppersmiths dwelling primarily in the South, the region – according to bib-
lical references – from where Yahweh emanated. Scholars have identified the Cain narrative
of Genesis 4 as the aetiological legend of the Kenites, and Cain thus as the eponymous ances-
tor of the Kenites. The name Cain – !yq – is a derivation from the word "gotten" or ac-
quired´– qānîtî, ytynq. In a text in Numbers15 Cain is associated with the Kenites – ynyq. The
genealogy of Cain links the lifestyle of the Kenites to three of Cain's descendants, namely be-
ing tent dwellers with livestock, musicians and metal craftsmen. Due to the particular nomad-
ic lifestyle and craft of the Kenites, they roamed over a large area and thus had the opportuni-
ty to spread the cult of Yahwism. The Kenites' presence in the southern regions is confirmed
by the discovery of a Hebrew ostraca at Arad wherein the place name Kinah is mentioned.
Kinah, which was situated not far from Arad, may be linked to colonisation by Kenites of the
eastern part of the Beer-sheba Valley. The Kenites, who might have been a clan of the Midi-
anites, wandered in the Sinai, Midian, Edom, Amalek, northern Palestine, and the Negeb; a
region in the Negeb was named after them. A raised platform, probably an altar, uncovered in
the centre of an excavated village at Arad –- identified as a Kenite establishment – might have
been a twelfth century BC Kenite shrine.
14
Deuteronomy 33:2; Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:8; Habakkuk 3:3.
15
Numbers 24:21-22.
624
Scholars have two major theories regarding the origin of Yahwism, namely the Kenite hy-
pothesis and the adoption of the El-figure by Yahweh. I postulate – in concurrence with my
hypothesis – that Yahweh was known and revered by the Midianites and Kenites from a very
early period. During the late seventeenth century the Dutch historian of religion, Cornelis P
Tiele, advanced the idea of the Kenite hypothesis. He identified Yahweh as the god of the de-
sert, whom the Kenites and related groups venerated before the Israelites did. According to
Karl Budde – who developed this classic formulation – a Moses-type figure gained
knowledge about Yahweh through his Kenite father-in-law, Jethro, a Midianite priest, who –
consistent with a tradition in Exodus – worshipped Yahweh. The Kenite hypothesis is sup-
ported by Egyptian records, as well as references in the Hebrew Bible that Yahweh emanated
from the South.
Scholars have disparate views regarding the Kenite hypothesis. In accordance with my hy-
pothesis, as well as with theories proposed by Budde and other scholars – taking particular
discrepancies and shortcomings into account – I evaluate the Kenite hypothesis, in general,
positively and I support this particular theory regarding the origin of Yahwism.
Some scholars argue that, despite many attributes of Yahweh, which are normally ascribed to
Ba‛al, Yahweh was originally more like El than like Ba‛al. El-names in the patriarchal narra-
tives are frequently used as epithets of Yahweh. Scholars therefore surmise that Yahweh and
El were associated at an early stage, and explain this connection by assuming that Yahweh
was originally an El-figure. Scholars also deduce that Yahweh was initially a cultic name of
El, and that Yahweh, therefore, could have been an epithet of El as patron deity of the Midian-
ites and Kenites. Although certain aspects of this theory – initiated by Albrecht Alt, and de-
veloped by Frank Moore Cross – have merits for the reconstruction of the origin of Yahwism,
I cannot completely agree with these scholars' proposals. This hypothesis, furthermore, does
not give an indication where Yahweh came from. I find it, however, inconceivable that Yah-
weh would have originated from El, who was in reality a Canaanite deity. The patriarchs,
probably, knew Yahweh mainly by his El-epithets. I, therefore, propose that El was a cultic
name or an epithet of Yahweh – not the other way around. I, thus, reiterate – in agreement
with my hypothesis – that Yahwism originated in the South, and that Yahweh was venerated
by the Midianites and Kenites, as well as other marginal southern tribes.
In addition to my support of the Kenite hypothesis, I advance – in agreement with my pro-

posed hypothesis – that marginal groups, who were apparently related, played a significant
625
role in the preserving of the pre-exilic Yahwistic religion. These groups probably included
the Rechabites, Calebites, Kenizzites and Jerahmeelites. The Rechabites, who lived in a kind
of symbiosis with the Judeans, eventually merged with the tribe.
In Chapter 6 these marginal tribes and clans are discussed. 'The social organization of West
Semitic tribal groups was grounded in kinship.'16 Non-Israelite relationships are conspicuous
in the Chronicler's genealogy of the tribe of Judah. The Chronicler appropriated descent to
demonstrate the legitimacy of an individual, indicating his connections to a worthy family.
According to a proposed diagram – at the end of Chapter 6 – of possible genealogical links
among marginal groups, it seems that the Chronicler connected different tribes to the family
of Judah – either by creating a positive lineage for them, or by their virtual assimilation into
this tribe. This genealogical depiction substantiates my theory that marginal groups were, by
reason of their interrelationships – specifically with the Kenites – involved in maintaining a
Yahwistic cult. Based on a genealogical link between the Kenites and the Rechabites, schol-
ars postulate that the Rechabites shared the Kenites' trade as metalworkers. Smiths and arti-
sans were – seemingly – highly regarded in the sixth century BC, and were also carried off
into captivity by the Babylonians.
According to 1 Chronicles 2:55, the House of Rechab was linked to the Kenites, who also led
a nomadic life in the South. Nomadic descendants of the Kenites, the Rechabites, and related
tribes and clans, regarded themselves as guardians of the pure Yahweh worship – Yahweh was
the god of the steppe and of the nomads. The Rechabites, who abstained from drinking wine
and lived in tents, represented the nomadic ideal. The origins of the Rechabites are obscure.
The Hebrew Bible refers to "Jehonadab, the son of Rechab", and "Jonadab the son of Rechab,
our father", indicating that Rechab might have been the founder of this group. The noun
formed on the root n-d-b denotes a member of the urban nobility. They followed a puritanical
lifestyle, and "obeyed the voice of their father"; Jeremiah set them as an example for the Ju-
deans and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 35 is the main source of information concern-
ing this group.
The Rechabites, Kenites and Calebites are all connected with the area on the border of Judah
and Edom – south-east of Palestine; this leads to the theory that non-Israelite groups were in-
strumental in introducing the cult of Yahweh into Judah and Israel. The Calebites were
16
Cross 1998:3.
626
related to the Kenizzites and Jerahmeelites – both who probably lived on the fringe of Judah
and are likewise associated with the Negeb and Arad. These peripheral groups, together with
some Levites – who were also marginalised – were involved in a Yahweh-alone movement
that originated during the Monarchical Period. This movement, which propagated exclusive
worship to Yahweh in resistance to polytheism, probably started during the ninth century BC.
The dominant religion of the Israelite Monarchy was polytheistic, and did not differ from that
of its neighbours. Although the leaders of the Yahweh-alone movement remain anonymous,
they might be called the founders of Jewish monotheism. By the eighth century BC monothe-
ism was presented as the only accepted ideal. However, the message of this minority group
was too extreme and in direct opposition to the traditional religious beliefs and practices. The
prophets were undoubtedly also advocates of the Yahweh-alone movement. The Rechabites,
whose lifestyle was a message of protest and resistance, were presented by Jeremiah as a
symbol of the preservation of their ancestral traditions. They 'were among the oldest strains
in the Israelite population to have worshipped Yahweh'. 17 The ideology of the Yahweh-alone
movement can also be detected in Jeremiah's assessment of Israel's religion.
Although references in the Hebrew Bible concerning the Rechabites and other marginal
groups are quite limited, I advance – in the light of available information – that these con-
servatives influenced minority communities into monotheistic Yahweh worship, and eventual-
ly became the driving force in the strict implementation of the Law during the Exile, and
thereafter. Their sober conservatism played a decisive role in the dramatic turnabout of a
mainly syncretistic Israelite cult to a monotheistic law-abiding religion.
Consensus has not been reached by scholars concerning the origin and establishment of the
Israelite nation. Various hypotheses prevail – particularly regarding their settlement in the
"land of Canaan". Traditions relating to the Israelites predominantly refer to Yahweh's in-
volvement with this nation, implying a monotheistic belief in and veneration of Yahweh from
the beginning of their history. Information in the Hebrew Bible – particularly relating to Is-
rael's history and religion – is, however, biased and unreliable. These matters are briefly ad-
dressed in Chapter 7.
Revisionist scholars argue that biblical Israel not necessarily had an historical existence; they
question the origin of the biblical literature that produced the history of such an Israel. Other
17
627
scholars, however, indicate that certain datable Iron Age archaeological witnesses converge
with literary references in the Masoretic Text. It is thus unlikely that a post-exilic editor
could have invented such narrative passages in the Hebrew text.
It seems that "pure" cultures never existed in the Ancient Near East, but that hybrid cultures
were the norm. The Israelites probably lived in a kind of symbiosis with the Sea Peoples and
Canaanites. Internal migrations among the so-called Israelite tribes did apparently happen.
According to genealogical lists, clans moved from one place to another and in this process
realigned with different tribes. It appears, furthermore, that the Israelites did not necessarily
have their own differentiated identity, but that it was moulded by a dynamic historical pro-
cess. The question of the origin of the Israelite nation, the historicity – or not – of the exodus,
and the manner of settlement of the Israelite tribes in Palestine, has been debated by scholars
for decades. Several hypotheses – particularly on the emergence and settlement of the Israel-
ites – have been advanced. No consensus has yet been reached. Biblical narratives, and their
credibility – specifically in the light of conflicting archaeological data – indicate the complex-
ity of the historical value of the Hebrew Bible. The Monarchical Period probably preserved
narratives about Israel's identity rather than to conserve a great deal of its history.
Considering the deliberations in Chapter 7, it is hardly possible to ascertain to what extent and
at which stage, southern marginal groups – such as Kenites, Jerahmeelites, and others – had
contact with, and merged with tribes that later comprised the Israelite nation. A number of
these peripheral tribes – including the Rechabites – were metallurgists, and therefore had the
opportunity to travel from the South to the North. Some of these tribes were probably linked
to the Shasu, who were associated with the southern regions, and migrated into the land of
Canaan, eventually merging with the "Israelite" tribes; other clans and tribes were – according
to the Chronicler's genealogical lists – assimilated into the tribe of Judah.
A long oral tradition precedes the later written and edited Hebrew Bible, which was compiled
within the framework of the background and preconceived ideas of the authors and redactors,
and is therefore not historically dependable. However, supplementary to archaeological finds,
the Masoretic Text could be regarded as the only other source of information on the history
and religion of the Israelites. As indicated in Chapter 8, scholars generally agree that the
main corpus of the Masoretic Text was finalised – or either compiled and finalised – during
the exilic and post-exilic periods. Biblical narrators wrote from a specific theological view-
point; historical memory adjusts reality to serve the present. The purpose of biblical
628
narratives was, furthermore – in all likelihood – to answer questions about the relationship of
people to the land where they lived, to the ethnic group with which they identified, and to the
religious myths and rituals that were fundamental to their sense of identity – and not to "pre-
sent facts".
Scholars generally accept that the deuteronomists were the developers of the Deuteronomistic
History. If a deuteronomistic movement did really exist, the question is to what extent and in
what form. Documents, such as the "Book of Law", do not justify speaking of a movement.
However, a Deuteronomistic School presumably existed, denoting a scribal guild, active dur-
ing the Exile and the Persian Period. Editors probably maintained the original text to which
they were bound, but felt free to interpret and change it. The earliest traditions were reinter-
preted in accordance with the perception of later generations. There was also a tendency to
weaken mythical elements in the inherited tradition. The essential part of the Hebrew Bible
was probably created in Babylon during the Persian Period. Although the theology of the He-
brew Bible seemingly presents the religious belief of the early Israelite/Jewish people, the fi-
nal collection and compilation of the canon actually reflects the theology from the sixth or
fifth century BC.
Internal diversification in Judaism found expression in the formation of sects, which started
between the fourth and second centuries BC. Conservative Jewish communities in Judah
clung to their established value systems, while in the Babylonian community 'a particular un-
derstanding of biblical monotheism was cultivated'.18 During the crisis of the Exile the small,
but growing group of the Yahweh-alone movement demanded exclusive worship of Yahweh;
monotheism was the solution to the political crisis. Reference to the Rechabites in rabbinic
literature is an indication that they continued to exist in the Second Temple Period.
In conclusion, I wish to encapsulate what I aimed to achieve, and that which I have accom-
plished. During my research, I once more became aware of the complexity of the origin of
Israel as a nation, as well as that of their Yahwistic religion. It was, inter alia, my purpose to
ascertain the influence of the religions and deities of the Ancient Near Eastern peoples on the
religion of the Israelites. In the investigation it became clear that the mythologies and legends
of neighbouring nations played a significant role in the Israelite religion, particularly influenc-
ing the crystallisation of the Yahweh image and attributes ascribed to Yahweh. It is, however,
18
Talmon 1987:595.
629
not so easy to detect in the Hebrew Bible what the extent of this influence was. Israelites
venerated gods other than Yahweh in their practise of syncretism. I, furthermore, established
that deities with different, but cognate names – as typically in the case of the Canaanite god-
dess Athirat/Asherah – appeared over a vast area of the Ancient Near East. This substantiates
my theory that some form of Yahwism originated – or was inherited from migrating groups –
at various localities of the Ancient Near East. Several epigraphic finds contain Ya-related
names. It is therefore evident that increased knowledge about Ancient Near Eastern religions
contributes to a better perception of the religion of the early Israelites. Sperling, 19 however,
argues that extra-biblical allusions to a god analogous to Yahweh, do not resolve the question
of the origin of Yahweh-worship.
It was also my purpose to determine the interdependence – or not – of different disciplines

relevant to the Hebrew Bible. In my research for this thesis it became clear that archaeology
and biblical scholarship – particularly historiography – cannot operate effectively without the
acceptance of their mutual dependence. I therefore emphasise the necessity to apply archaeo-
logical results as support for any theoretical conclusions; biblical and related studies cannot
be researched in isolation.
Although it is hardly possible to ascertain the origin of the Kenites, I nevertheless and in con-
currence with my theory, support the Kenite hypothesis. In my assessment of the possible
influence marginal groups had on the religion of the later Israelite nation, I draw the conclu-
sion that these groups emanated mainly from the southern regions of Palestine. These tribes
all seem to have been genealogically linked, albeit – in some instances – artificially by the
Chronicler; they were also gradually incorporated into the tribe of Judah.
As my hypothesis for this research is that the Israelite God Yahweh was originally a Midian-
ite/Kenite deity and that marginal groups related to the Kenites, such as the Rechabites,
played a significant and dominant role in the preserving of a pre-exilic Yahweh-alone move-
ment, as well as in the establishment of a post-exilic Yahweh monotheism, I wish to reiterate
conclusive remarks in paragraphs 8.8.2 and 8.10. Although it is hardly possible to ascertain
exactly how, and by which group or groups, a strict Yahweh-alone monotheism was instituted
during the Exile, and thereafter maintained during the Second Temple Period, I propose that
the Rechabites were at least one of the major groups that were instrumental in this reversal of
19
Sperling 1987:2-3.
630
the Judahites' cultic affinities, I furthermore advance that, unless revolutionary informative
material becomes available, it is, more or less, impossible to establish exactly what the course
of Israel's religious history was. Therefore, my hypothesis as a possible scenario could be re-
garded as valid as any other suggestion.
Despite the extent of research material in this thesis, I realise that a particular shortcoming
concerns the number of different subjects addressed, with the result that not all themes were
discussed and evaluated in depth. At the same time, it was my purpose to indicate the mutual
dependence of the different disciplines related to biblical studies – this, I estimate, was
achieved.
For future research I would suggest that scholars explore all possible epigraphic and other
finds that might give an indication to a form of Yahweh-veneration elsewhere than in Israel.
Similarly, the influence of Asherah could be assessed – including her as proposed consort of
Yahweh – on the religious life of the Israelites. I would also recommend an in-depth analysis
of the religion practised by the Israelite women. Exegetical studies could be considered re-
garding aspects embodied in my hypothesis, such as the role of the Levites as marginalised
group. A further topic could be to analyse, if possible, the exact extent of syncretism among
the Israelites, and finally, to endeavour to unravel the mysteries of the Chronicler's genealogi-
cal lists.
631
BIBLIOGRAPHY1
Abba, R 1961. The divine name Yahweh. JBL 80, 320-328.

Abramsky, S 1967. The house of Rechab. Eretz-Israel 8, 76, 255-264.
— 1971. Rechabites, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 13, 1609-1612.
Abusch, T 1999. Ishtar, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:452-456.
Ackerman, S 1992. Under every green tree: popular religion in sixth-century Judah. Atlan-
ta: Scholars Press. (HSM 46.)
— 1993. The queen mother and the cult in ancient Israel. JBL 112(3), 385-401.
Aharoni, M 1993. The Israelite citadels, in Stern, E (ed), The new encyclopedia of archaeo-
logical excavations in the Holy Land, vol 1, 82-87. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Aharoni, Y 1973. The Solomonic temple, the tabernacle and the Arad sanctuary, in Hoffner
(ed) 1973:1-8.
— 1981. Arad inscriptions. Ed and rev by A F Rainey. Tr by J Ben-Or. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi
Printing Enterprises.
Albertz, R 1994. A history of Israelite religion in the Old Testament period. Vol 1. From the
beginnings to the end of the exile. Tr by J Bowden. London: SCM.
Albright, W F 1944. A prince of Taanach in the fifteenth century B.C. BASOR 94, 12-27.
— [1949] 1960. The archaeology of Palestine. Rev ed. Middlesex: Penguin.
— 1968. Yahweh and the gods of Canaan: a historical analysis of two contrasting faiths.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Aldred, C [1961] 1998. The Egyptians. 3rd ed rev and updated by A Dodson. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Allon, Y 1971. Kenite, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 10, 906-907.
Alster, B 1999. Tammuz, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:828-834.
Althann, R 1992. Josiah, in Friedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 1015-1018.
Amiran, R 1986. The fall of the Early Bronze Age II city of Arad. IEJ 36, 74-76.
Anbar, M 1994. 'Thou shalt make no covenant with them' (Exodus 23-32), in Reventlow et al
(eds) 1994:41-48.
Anderson, B W 1962. God, names of, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 407-417.
Anderson, R W Jr 1995. Zephaniah ben Cushi and Cush of Benjamin: traces of Cushite pres-
ence in Syria-Palestine, in Holloway & Handy (eds) 1995:45-70.
Anderson, G A & Olyan, S M 1991. Preface, in Anderson, G A & Olyan, S M (eds), Priest-
hood and cult in ancient Israel, 7-9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 125.)
Ann, M & Imel, D M 1993. Goddesses in world mythology: a biographical dictionary. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Archi, A 1979. The epigraphic evidence from Ebla and the Old Testament. Bib 60, 556-566.
1
Based on the reference system according to Kilian, J 1985. Form and style in theological texts: a guide for use
of the Harvard reference system. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
632
Arnold, B T 1994. Babylonians, in Hoerth et al (eds) 1994:43-75.
Arnold, B T & Beyer, B E (eds) 2002. Readings from the Ancient Near East: primary
sources for Old Testament study. Michigan: Baker Academic.
Assmann, J 1999. Amun, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:28-32.
Astour, M C 1962. Yahwe, in Crim (ed) 1962:971.
— 1973. Ugarit and the Aegean: a brief summary of archaeological and epigraphic evidence,
in Hoffner (ed) 1973:17-27.
— 1992a. Alalakh, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 142-145.
— 1992b. Melchizedek, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 684-686.
Aufrecht, W E 1988. Genealogy and history in ancient Israel, in Eslinger & Taylor (eds)
1988:205-235.
Avigad, N 1979. Jerahmeel and Baruch: king's son and scribe. BA 42(2), 114-118.
— 1987. The contribution of Hebrew seals to an understanding of Israelite religion and socie-
ty, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:195-208.
Axelsson, L E 1987. The Lord rose up from Seir: studies in the history and traditions of the
Negev and southern Judah. Tr by F H Cryer. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International. (Co-
niectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 25.)
Baker, D W 1982. Zedekiah, in Douglas (ed) 1982:1277-1278.
Baker, D W & Millard, A R 1982. Uzziah, in Douglas (ed) 1982:1232-1233.
Barkay, G, Lundberg, M J, Vaughn, A G & Zuckerman, B 2004. The amulets from Ketef
Hinnom: a new edition and evaluation. BASOR 334, 41-71.
Barkay, G, Lundberg, M J, Vaughn, A G, Zuckerman, B & Zuckerman, K 2003. The chal-
lenges of Ketef Hinnom: using advanced technologies to reclaim the earliest biblical texts and
their context. NEA 66(4), 162-171.
Barré, M L 1999. Lightning, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:519-520.
Barrett, C 1992. The Egyptian gods and goddesses: the mythology and beliefs of ancient
Egypt. London: Aquarian.
Barrick, W B & Spencer, J R (eds) 1984. In the shelter of Elyon: essays on ancient Palestini-
an life and literature in honor of G W Ahlström. Sheffield: JSOT Press. (JSOTS 31.)
Barrois, G A 1962a. Hinnom, valley of the son of, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 606.
— 1962b. Topheth, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 673.
Bartlett, J R 1989. Edom and the Edomites. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS
77.)
— 1997. What has archaeology to do with the Bible – or vice versa, in Bartlett (ed) 1997:1-
19.
Bartlett, J R (ed) 1997. Archaeology and biblical interpretation. London: Routledge.
Barton, J 2004. Dating the 'succession narrative', in Day (ed) 2004:95-106.
Batto, B F 1992. Slaying the dragon: mythmaking in the biblical tradition. Westminster:
John Knox.
633
Beck, A B, Bartlett, A H, Raabe, P R & Franke, C A (eds) 1995. Fortunate the eyes that see:
essays in honor of David Noel Freedman in celebration of his seventieth birthday. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Beck, P 1994. The cult-stands from Taanach: aspects of iconographic tradition of Early Iron
Age cult objects in Palestine, in Finkelstein & Na’aman (eds) 1994:352-381.
Becking, B 1997. Assyrian evidence for iconic polytheism in ancient Israel, in Van der Toorn
(ed) 1997:157-171.
— 1999a. Cain, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:180.
— 1999b. Continuity and discontinuity after the Exile: some introductory remarks, in Beck-
ing & Korpel (eds) 1999:1-8.
— 1999c. Ishhara, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:450.
— 1999d. Kenan, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:479-480.
— 1999e. Rapha, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:687-688.
— 2001. Only one God: on possible implications for biblical theology, in Becking et al
2001:189-201.
Becking, B, Dijkstra, M, Korpel, M C A & Vriezen, K J H 2001. Only one God: monotheism
in ancient Israel and the veneration of the goddess Asherah. London: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Becking, B & Korpel, M C A (eds) 1999. The crisis of Israelite religion: transformation of
religious tradition in exilic and post-exilic times. Leiden: Brill. (OTS 42.)
Beegle, D M 1992. Moses, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 909-918.
Beek, M A 1982. Rahab in the light of Jewish exegesis, in Delsman, W C, Nelis, J T, Peters,
J R T M, Römer, W H Ph & Van der Woude, AS (Herausg), Von Kanaan bis Kerala:
Festschrift für Prof Mag Dr Dr J P M van der Ploeg OP zur Vollendung des siebzigsten
Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979, 37-44. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer. (Alter
Orient und Altes Testament.)
Beit-Arieh, I 1984. New evidence on the relations between Canaan and Egypt during the Pro-
to-Dynastic period. IEJ 34, 20-23.
Benjamin, D C 1994. A response to McNutt: the Kenites, the Midianites, and the Rechabites
as marginal mediators in ancient Israelite tradition. Semeia 67, 133-145.
Ben-Tor, A 1998. The fall of Canaanite Hazor: the "who" and "when" questions, in Gitin et al
(eds) 1998:456-467.
Ben Zvi, E 1994. On the reading 'bytdwd' in the Aramaic stele from Tel Dan. JSOT 64, 25-
32.
— 1995. Inclusion in and exclusion from Israel as conveyed by the use of the term 'Israel' in
post-monarchic biblical texts, in Holloway & Handy (eds) 1995:95-149.
— 1999. A deuteronomistic redaction in/among "The Twelve": a contribution from the
standpoint of the books of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah, in Schearing & McKenzie (eds)
1999:232-261.
— 2004. Observations on the marital metaphor of YHWH and Israel in its ancient Israelite
context: general considerations and particular images in Hosea 1.2. JSOT 28 (3), 363-384.
— 2006. Observations on Josiah's account in Chronicles and implications for reconstructing
the worldview of the Chronicler, in Amit, Y, Ben Zvi, E, Finkelstein, I & Lipschits, O (eds),
Essays on ancient Israel in its Near Eastern context: a tribute to Nadav Na’aman, 89-106.
634
Berlinerblau, J 1996. The vow and the 'popular religious groups' of ancient Israel: a philo-
logical and sociological inquiry. Sheffield: Academic Press. (JSOTS 210.)
Berman, M M & Carlebach, A 1971. Jochebed, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 10,
130.
Berman, M M & Carlebach, A (eds) 1971. Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols. New York:
Macmillan.
Berridge, J M 1992. Jaazaniah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 592-593.
Betz, H D 1986. Introduction to the Greek magical papyri, in Betz, H D (ed), The Greek
magical papyri in translation including the demotic spells, xli-liii. Chicago: Chicago Univer-
sity Press.
Beyerlin, W [1961] 1965. Origins and history of the oldest Sinaitic traditions. Tr by S Rud-
man. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bezuidenhout, L C 1996. Die moederskoot van Israel: 'n teologiese besinning oor die nuwe
navorsingsresultate met betrekking tot die totstandkoming van Israel. HTS 52(4), 590-604.
Bienkowski, P & Sedman, L 2001. Busayra and Judah: stylistic parallels in the material cul-
ture, in Mazar (ed) 2001: 310-325.
Bimson, J J 1989. The origins of Israel in Canaan: an examination of recent theories. Theme-
lios 15(1), 4-15.
— 1991. Merenptah's Israel and recent theories of Israelite origins. JSOT 49, 3-29.
Bimson, J J, Kane, J P, Paterson, J H & Wiseman, D J 1985. New Bible atlas. Leicester: In-
ter-varsity Press.
Binger, T 1997. Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 232.)
Biran, A [1992] 1994a. Biblical Dan. Rev augm ed. Tr by J Shadur. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society.
— 1994b. Tel Dan: biblical texts and archaeological data, in Coogan et al (eds) 1994:1-17.
— 2001. The high places of biblical Dan, in Mazar (ed) 2001:148-155.
Biran, A & Naveh, J 1993. An Aramaic stele fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43(2-3), 81-98.
— 1995. Tel Dan inscription: a new fragment. IEJ 45(1), 1-18.
Bird, P 1987. The place of women in the Israelite cultus, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:397-419.
Blau, J L 1980. Kabbalah, in The Macmillan family encyclopedia, vol 12, 3. London: Mac-
millan.
Blenkinsopp, J 1986. Yahweh and other deities: conflict and accommodation in the religion
of Israel. Interpretation 40(4), 354-366.
Bloch-Smith, E 1994. Who is the King of Glory: Solomon's temple and its symbolism, in
Coogan et al (eds) 1994:18-31.
Bodine, W R 1994. Sumerians, in Hoerth et al (eds) 1994:19-42.
Boer, R 2002a. Introduction: on re-reading The tribes of Yahweh, in Boer (ed) 2002:1-9.
— 2002b. Marx, method and Gottwald, in Boer (ed) 2002:98-156.
Boer, R (ed) 2002. Tracking The tribes of Yahweh: on the trail of a classic. London: Shef-
field Academic Press. (JSOTS 351.)
635
Boling, R G 1985. Levitical cities: archaeology and texts, in Kort & Morschauser (eds)
1985:23-32.
— 1992. Joshua, book of, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 1002-1015.
Borger, R 1979. Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, Heft 2. Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum. (Analecta Orientalia 54.)
Boshoff, W 1994. Variety is a sign of life: thoughts on the history of Israelite religion. OTE
7(4), 121-131.
— 2001. Archaeological publications and the history of ancient Israelite religions: primary
and secondary publications on the archaeology, history and religion of ancient Israel. OTE
14(3), 371-391.
Boshoff, W, Scheffler, E & Spangenberg, I 2000. Ancient Israelite literature in context. Pre-
toria: Protea.
Botterweck, G J, Ringgren, H & Fabry, H-J (eds) 1974-2001. Theological dictionary of the
Old Testament, 12 vols. Tr by J T Willis & D E Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Boyarin, D 1993. Carnal Israel: reading sex in Talmudic culture. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bracke, J M 1992. Habazziniah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 6.
Brandfon, F R 1988. Archaeology and the biblical text. BARev 14(1), 54-59.
Bright, J 1965. Jeremiah: a new translation with introduction and commentary. New York:
Doubleday. (The Anchor Bible.)
Broadie, A 1994. Maimonides on the great tautology Exodus 3, 14. Scottish Journal of
Theology 47(4), 473-488.
Brock-Utne, A 1936. Die religionshistorischen Voraussetzungen der Kain-Abel-Geschichte.
ZAW 9(13), 202-239.
Brownlee, W H 1977. The ineffable Name of God. BASOR 226, 39-46.
Brueggemann, W 1994. The Baruch connection: reflections on Jer 43:1-7. JBL 113(3), 405-
420.
Bryant, V M Jr 2000. Does pollen prove the shroud authentic. BARev 26(6), 36-44, 75.
Budde, K 1895. The nomadic ideal in the Old Testament. The New World 4(16), 726-745.
— 1899. Religion of Israel to the exile. New York: G P Putnam. (American Lectures on the
History of Religions, 4th series, 1898-1899.)
Burnett, J S 2001. A reassessment of biblical Elohim. Atlanta: SBL. (SBL 183.)
Burns, R J 1992a. Jochebed, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 871-872.
— 1992b. Zipporah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 1105.
Bury, J B, Cook, S A & Adcock, F E (eds) 1925. The Cambridge ancient history. Vol 3. The
Assyrian Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buttrick, G A (ed) 1962. The interpreter's dictionary of the Bible: an illustrated encyclope-
dia, 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon.
Byrne, R 2004. Lie back and think of Judah: the reproductive politics of pillar figurines.
NEA 67(3), 137-151.
Carroll, R P 1994. So what do we know about the temple: the temple in the prophets, in Es-
kenazi & Richards (eds) 1994:34-51.
636
Carroll, S T 1992. Atargatis, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 509.
Carter, C E 1994. The province of Yehud in the post-exilic period: soundings in site distribu-
tion and demography, in Eskenazi & Richards (eds) 1994:106-145.
Cassuto, U 1961. A commentary on the book of Genesis: from Adam to Noah, part 1. Tr by I
Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes.
— [1951] 1971. The goddess Anath: Canaanite epics of the patriarchal age. Tr by I Abra-
hams. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Cathcart, K J 1997. The age of decipherment: the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East
in the nineteenth century, in Emerton (ed) 1997:81-95.
Catron, J E 1995. Temple and bāmāh: some considerations, in Holloway & Handy (eds)
1995:150-165.
Caubet, A 2000. Ras Shamra – Ugarit: before the Sea Peoples, in Oren (ed) 2000:35-52.
Cavendish, R (ed) 1985. Man, myth and magic: the illustrated encyclopedia of mythology,
religion and the unknown. New York: Marshall Cavendish.
Charles-Picard, G (ed) [1969] 1983. Larousse encyclopedia of archaeology. 2nd ed. Tr by A
Ward. London: Chancellor.
Charlesworth, J H 1986. Greek, Persian, Roman, Syrian, and Egyptian influences in early
Jewish theology: a study of the History of the Rechabites, in Caquot, A, Hadas-Lebel, M &
Riaud, J (eds), Hellenica et Judaica: homage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, 219-243. Leuven:
Peeters.
Charley, J W 1982. Terah, in Douglas (ed) 1982:1175.
Chikafu, P T 1993. The audience presupposed in the conquest, infiltration and revolt models:
a sociological analysis. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 84, 11-24.
Childs, B S 1962a. Eve, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 181-182.
— 1962b. Memory and tradition in Israel. London: SCM. (Studies in Biblical Theology.)
— 1974. Exodus: a commentary. London: SCM. (OTL.)
Choi, J H 2004. Reseph and YHWH ĚBĀ’ÔT. VT 54(1), 17-28.
Christ, C P 1979. Why women need the goddess: phenomenological, psychological, and po-
litical reflections, in Christ & Plaskow (eds) 1979:273-287.
Christ, C P & Plaskow, J (eds) 1979. Womanspirit rising: a feminist reader in religion. Lon-
don: Harper & Row.
Clayton, P 1990. A – Z of mythology. London: Bison Books.
Clayton, P A 1994. Chronicle of the Pharaohs: the reign-by-reign record of the rulers and
dynasties of ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.
Clements, R E 1972. Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (CNEB.)
Coats, G W 1987. The book of Joshua: heroic saga or conquest theme. JSOT 38, 15-32.
— 1993. The Moses tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 161.)
Coetzee, J C 1986. Jesus' revelation in the ego eimi sayings in Jn 8 and 9, in Petzer, J H &
Hartin, P J (eds), A South African perspective on the New Testament: essays by South African
New Testament scholars presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during his visit to South Africa
in 1985, 170-177. Leiden: Brill.
Coggins, R 1995. What does 'deuteronomistic' mean, in Davies et al (eds) 1995:135-148.
637
Cohen, M A 1965. The role of the Shilonite priesthood in the United Monarchy of ancient
Israel. HUCA 36, 59-98.
Cohen, S 1962a. Beer-Sheba, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 375-376.
— 1962b. Edom, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 24-26.
— 1962c. Petra, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 772-773.
— 1962d. Succoth, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 449.
Cohon, S S 1950. The name of God: a study in rabbinic theology. HUCA 23, 579-604.
Cole, R A 1973. Exodus: an introduction and commentary. London: Tyndale. (The Tyndale
Old Testament Commentaries.)
Coleson, J E & Matthews, V H (eds) 1996. Go to the land I will show you: studies in honor
of Dwight W Young. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Collier, M & Manley, B [1998] 2003. How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs: a step-by-step
guide to teach yourself. Repr with corrections. London: British Museum Press.
Collins, J J 1989. The origin of the Qumran community: a review of the evidence, in Horgan,
M P & Kobelski, P J (eds), To touch the text: biblical and related studies in honor of Joseph
A Fitzmyer S J, 159-178. New York: Crossroad.
— 1992. Daniel, book of, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 29-37.
Combs, E 1988. Has YHWH cursed the ground: perplexity of interpretation of Genesis 1-5,
in Eslinger & Taylor (eds) 1988:265-287.
Coogan, M D 1987. Canaanite origins and lineage: reflections on the religion of ancient Is-
rael, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:115-124.
Coogan, M D, Exum, J C & Stager, L E (eds) 1994. Scripture and other artifacts: essays on
the Bible and archaeology in honor of Philip J King. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Cook, S A 1906. Notes on Old Testament history, VI: the Calebite tradition. Jewish Quarter-
ly Review 19(1), 168-184.
Cook, S L 2004. The social roots of biblical monotheism. Atlanta: SBL. (SBL 8.)
Cooper, J S 1985. Sargon and Joseph: dreams come true, in Kort & Morschauser (eds)
1985:33-39.
Cornelius, I 1997a. Some pages from the reception history of Genesis 3: the visual arts.
JNSL 23(2), 221-233.
— 1997b. The many faces of God: divine images and symbols in Ancient Near Eastern reli-
gions, in Van der Toorn (ed) 1997:21-43.
— 2004. The many faces of the goddess: the iconography of the Syro-Palestinian goddesses
Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500-1000 BCE. Fribourg: Academic Press.
Cornelius, S & Venter P J 2002. From the Nile to the Euphrates: an introduction to the An-
cient Near East. Stellenbosch: MACU. (Mosaic of Ancient Cultures Academic Series 1.)
Craig, K M Jr 2003. Judges in recent research. CBR 1(2), 159-185.
Crenshaw, J L 1995. Who knows what YHWH will do: the character of God in the book of
Joel, in Beck et al (eds) 1995:185-196.
Crim, K (ed) 1962. The interpreter's dictionary of the Bible: an illustrated encyclopedia,
supp vol. Nashville: Abingdon.
Cross, F M 1962. Yahweh and the gods of the patriarchs. HThR 55, 225-259.
638
Cross, F M 1968. The Canaanite cuneiform tablet from Taanach. BASOR 190, 41-46.
— 1973. Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic: essays in the history of the religion of Israel.
Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
— 1974. la ’ēl, in Botterweck et al (eds) 1974-2001 vol 1, 242-261.
— 1998. From epic to canon: history and literature in ancient Israel. Baltimore: John Hop-
kins University Press.
— 2004. Introduction to the study of the history of the religion of Israel, in Kaltner & Stul-
man (eds) 2004:8-11.
Cryer, F H 1994. On the recently-discovered "House of David" inscription. SJOT 8, 3-19.
Curtis, A 1985. Cities of the biblical world: Ugarit Ras Shamra. Cambridge: Lutterworth.
Dahlberg, B T 1962a. Bithiah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 443.
— 1962b. Jerahmeel, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 822.
— 1962c. Sanballat, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 210.
Dahood, M 1981. The god Yā at Ebla? JBL 100, 607-608.
Dahood, M J 1958. Ancient Semitic deities in Syria and Palestine, in Bottéro, J, Dahood M J
& Caskel, W, Le Antiche Divinità Semitiche, 65-94. Roma: Universita di Roma Studi Semiti-
ci.
Dalley, S 1990. Yahweh in Hamath in the 8th century BC: cuneiform material and historical
deductions. VT 60(1), 21-32.
Danker, F W 1992. Purple, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 557-560.
Daviau, P M M 2001. Family religion: evidence for the paraphernalia of the domestic cult, in
Daviau et al (eds) 2001b:199-229.
Daviau, P M M, Wevers, J W & Weigl, M (eds) 2001a. The world of the Aramaeans I: bibli-
cal studies in honour of Paul-Eugène Dion. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS
324.)
— 2001b. The world of the Aramaeans II: studies in history and archaeology in honour of
Paul-Eugène Dion. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 325.)
— 2001c. The world of the Aramaeans III: studies in language and literature in honour of
Paul-Eugène Dion. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 326.)
Davies, G 2004. Was there an exodus, in Day (ed) 2004:23-40
Davies, J, Harvey, G & Watson, W G E (eds) 1995. Words remembered, texts renewed: es-
says in honour of John F A Sawyer. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 195.)
Davies, P R 1992. In search of ancient Israel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS
148.)
— 1994a. Bytdwd and Swkt Dwyd: a comparison. JSOT 64, 23-24.
— 1994b. "House of David" built on sand: the sins of the biblical maximizers. BARev 20(4),
54-55.
— 1994c. The society of biblical Israel, in Eskenazi & Richards (eds) 1994:22-33.
— 1998. Scribes and schools: the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures. Louisville: West-
minster John Knox. (Library of Ancient Israel.)
— 2000. Corrigenda. CR:BS 8, 117-123.
639
Day, J 1986. Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic literature. JBL 105 (3),
385-408.
— 1992a. Baal, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 545-549.
— 1992b. Leviathan, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 295-296.
— 1992c. Rahab, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 610-611.
— 1995. Foreign Semitic influence on the wisdom of Israel and its appropriation in the book
of Proverbs, in Day et al (eds) 1995:55-70.
— 2000. Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press. (JSOTS 265.)
Day, J (ed) 2004. In search of pre-exilic Israel: proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament
Seminar. London: T & T Clark.
Day, J, Gordon, R P & Williamson, H G M (eds) 1995. Wisdom in ancient Israel: essays in
honour of J A Emerton. Cambridge: University Press.
Day, P L 1999. Anat, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:36-43.
Dearman, J A & Mattingly, G L 1992. Mesha stele, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 708-709.
Deist, F E 1986. Verteltekste, in Deist, F E & Vorster, W S (reds), Woorde wat ver kom: die
literatuur van die Ou Testament, deel 1, 69-102. Kaapstad: Tafelberg.
— [1984] 1990. A concise dictionary of theological and related terms. 2nd rev enlarged ed.
Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Deist, F E & Du Plessis, I J 1981. God en sy ryk. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Del Olmo Lete, G 1999. Og, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:638-640.
De Moor, J C 1977. l[b ba‛al, in Botterweck et al (eds) 1974-2001 vol 2, 181-193. Rev ed.
— [1990] 1997. The rise of Yahwism: the roots of Israelite monotheism. Rev enlarged ed.
Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Dempster, S 2001. From many texts to one: the formation of the Hebrew Bible, in Daviau et
al (eds) 2001a:19-56.
Demsky, A 1971. Scribe, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 14, 1041-1043.
— 1995. On reading ancient inscriptions: the monumental Aramaic stele fragment from Tel
Dan. JANES 23, 29-35.
De Pury, A 1999a. El-Olam, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:288-291.
— 1999b. El-Roi, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:291-292.
De Vaux, R [1961] 1965. Ancient Israel: its life and institutions. 2nd ed. Tr by J McHugh.
London: Darton, Longman & Todd.
Dever, W G 1987. The contribution of archaeology to the study of Canaanite and early Israel-
ite religion, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:209-247.
— 1988. Impact of the "New Archaeology", in Drinkard et al (eds) 1988:337-352.
— 1993. Cultural continuity, ethnicity in the archaeological record and the question of Israel-
ite origins. Eretz-Israel 24, 22-33.
— 1994. The silence of the text: an archaeological commentary on 2 Kings 23, in Coogan et
al (eds) 1994:143-167.
640
Dever, W G 1996. Revisionist Israel revisited: a rejoinder to Niels Peter Lemche. CR:BS, 4,
35-50.
— 1997a. Archaeology and the emergence of early Israel, in Bartlett (ed) 1997:20-50.
— 1997b. Philology, theology, and archaeology: what kind of history of Israel do we want,
and what is possible, in Silberman & Small (eds) 1997:290-310.
— 1998a. Archaeology, ideology and the quest for an "ancient" or "biblical" Israel. NEA
61(1), 39-52.
— 1998b. Social structure in Palestine in the Iron II period on the eve of destruction, in Levy
(ed) 1998:416-429.
— 2000. Biblical and Syro-Palestinian archaeology: a state-of-the-art assessment at the turn
of the millennium. CR:BS 8, 91-116.
— 2001. What did the biblical writers know and when did they know it: what archaeology
can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel. Cambridge: Eerdmans.
— 2003. Who were the early Israelites and where did they come from? Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
— 2004. Histories and non-histories of ancient Israel: the question of the United Monarchy,
in Day (ed) 2004:65-94.
— 2005. Did God have a wife: archaeology and folk religion in ancient Israel. Cambridge:
Eerdmans.
— 2006. Archaeology and ancient Israelite iconography: did Yahweh have a face, in Maeir,
A M, Miroschedji, P & Mazar, A (eds), I will speak the riddles of ancient times: archaeologi-
cal and historical studies in honor of Amihai Mazar on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday,
461.
De Villiers, G 2002. Where did she come from, and where did she go to: the Queen of Heav-
en in Jeremiah 7 and 44. OTE 15(3), 620-627.
De Vries, S J 1962. Calender, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 483-488.
— 1993. Kuenen's pentateuchal research in comparison with recent pentateuchal studies in
North America, in Dirksen & Van der Kooij (eds) 1993:128-147.
Dijkstra, M 1999. Aliyan, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:18-20.
— 2001a. El, the God of Israel – Israel, the people of YHWH: on the origins of ancient Isra-
elite Yahwism, in Becking et al 2001:81-126.
— 2001b. I have blessed you by YHWH of Samaria and his Asherah: texts with religious el-
ements from the soil archive of ancient Israel, in Becking et al 2001:17-44.
— 2001c. Women and religion in the Old Testament, in Becking et al 2001:164-188.
— 2005. As for the other events: annals and chronicles in Israel and the Ancient Near East, in
Gordon & De Moor (eds) 2005:14-44.
Di Lella, A A 1992. Wisdom of Ben-Sira, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 931-945.
Dion, P E 1991. YHWH as Storm-God and Sun-God: the double legacy of Egypt and Canaan
as reflected in Psalm 104. ZAW 103, 43-71.
Dirksen, P B & Van der Kooij, A (eds) 1993. Abraham Kuenen (1828-1891). His major con-
tributions to the study of the Old Testament: a colllection of Old Testament studies published
on the occasion of the centenary of Abraham Kuenen's death (10 December 1991). Leiden:
Brill. (OTS 29.)
641
Domeris, W R 1994. Jeremiah and the religion of Canaan. OTE 7(1), 7-20.
Dothan, T 1990. Ekron of the Philistines, part 1: where they came from, how they settled
down and the place they worshiped in. BARev 16(1), 26-36.
Douglas, J D (ed) [1962] 1982. New Bible Dictionary. 2nd rev ed. Leicester: Intervarsity
Press.
Dresden, M J 1962a. Ahura-Mazda, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 72.
— 1962b. Zarathustra, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 935.
Drinkard, J F Jr 1998. The history and archaeology of the book of Joshua and the con-
quest/settlement period. Review & Expositor 95(1), 171-188.
Drinkard, J F Jr & Gibson, J M 1988. Glossary, in Drinkard et al (eds) 1988:465-467.
Drinkard, J F Jr, Mattingly, G L & Miller, J M (eds) 1988. Benchmarks in time and culture:
an introduction to Palestinian archaeology. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (ASOR.SBL.)
Driver, G R 1928. The original form of the name Yahweh: evidence and conclusions. ZAW
5, 7-25.
Droge, A J 2003. The lying pen of the scribes of holy books and pious frauds. Method and
Theory in the Study of Religion 15(2), 117-147.
Dumbrell, W J 1975. Midian: a land or a league. VT 25(3), 323-337.
Duncan, J G 1936. New light on Hebrew origins. New York: Macmillan.
Dundes, A (ed) 1988. The flood myth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Durand, J-M 1992. Mari texts, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 529-536. Tr by J L Davis.
Edelman, D 2003. Proving Yahweh killed his wife (Zechariah 5:5-11), in Exum, J C (ed),
Biblical Interpretation: a journal of contemporary approaches, vol 11, 335-344. Leiden:
Brill.
Edwards, D R & McCullough, C T (eds) 1997. Archaeology and the Galilee: texts and con-
texts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine periods. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (South Florida
Studies in the History of Judaism 143, ed by J Neusner et al.)
Eerdmans, B D 1948. The name Jahu. OTS 5, 1-29.
Ehrlich, C S 1992a. Beth-ashbea, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 682.
— 1992b. Gederah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 925.
— 2001. The bytdwd-inscription and Israelite historiography: taking stock after half a decade
of research, in Daviau et al (eds) 2001b:57-71.
Eliade, M (ed) 1987. The encyclopedia of religion, 16 vols. New York: Macmillan.
Elnes, E E & Miller, P D 1999. Elyon, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:293-299.
Emerton, J A 1982. New light on Israelite religion: the implications of the inscriptions from
Kuntillet ‛Ajrud. ZAW 94, 2-20.
Emerton, J A (ed) 1997. Congress volume: Cambridge 1995. Leiden: Brill. (VT Supp 66.)
Epstein, I 1959. Judaism: a historical presentation. London: Penguin.
Eskenazi, T C 1992. Sophereth, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 159.
Eskenazi, T C & Richards, K H (eds) 1994. Second Temple studies: temple community in the
Persian Period. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 175.)
642
Eslinger, L & Taylor, G (eds) 1988. Ascribe to the Lord: biblical and other studies in
memory of Peter C Craigie. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 67.)
Evans, C D 1995. Cult images, royal policies and the origin of aniconism, in Holloway &
Handy (eds) 1995:192-212.
Fager, J A 1992. Bezalel, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 717.
Fanwar, W M 1992. Sela, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 1073-1074.
Farmer, W R 1962. Essenes, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 143-149.
Faust, A 2000. Ethnic complexity in northern Israel during Iron Age II. PEQ 132, 2-27.
Fechter, F 2000. Priesthood in Exile according to the Book of Ezekiel. Society of Biblical
Literature Seminar Papers 39, 673-699. Missoula: SBL.
Fensham, F C 1964. Did a treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites exist? BASOR 175,
51-54.
Fenton, T 2004. Hebrew poetic structure as a basis for dating, in Day (ed) 2004:386-409.
Ferguson, E 1990. Therapeutae, in Ferguson (ed) 1990:896.
Ferguson, E (ed) 1990. Encyclopedia of early Christianity. New York: Garland.
Finegan, J [1964] 1998. Handbook of biblical chronology: principles of time reckoning in the
ancient world and problems of chronology in the Bible. Rev ed. Massachusettes: Hendrick-
son.
Finkelstein, I 1988. The archaeology of the Israelite settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-
tion Society.
— 1990. Early Arad: urbanism and nomads. ZDPV 106, 34-50.
— 1997. Pots and people revisited: ethnic boundaries in the Iron Age I, in Silberman &
Small (eds) 1997:216-237.
— 1998. The great transformation: the 'conquest' of the highlands frontiers and the rise of the
territorial states, in Levy (ed) 1998:349-363.
— 1999. State formation in Israel and Judah: a contrast in context, a contrast in trajectory.
NEA 62(1), 35-52.
Finkelstein, I & Na’aman, N 1994. Introduction: from nomadism to monarchy – the state of
research in 1992, in Finkelstein & Na’aman (eds) 1994:9-17.
Finkelstein, I & Na’aman, N (eds) 1994. From nomadism to monarchy: archaeological and
historical aspects of early Israel. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society.
Finkelstein, I & Silberman, N A 2001. The Bible unearthed: archaeology's new vision of an-
cient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts. New York: The Free Press.
— 2006. David and Solomon: in search of the Bible's sacred kings and the roots of the West-
ern tradition. New York: Free Press.
Fishbane, M 1987a. Adam, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 1, 27-28.
— 1987b. Eve, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 5, 199.
Fisher, L R 1973. The patriarchal cycles, in Hoffner (ed) 1973:59-65.
Fleming, D E 2000. Mari's large public tent and the priestly tent sanctuary. VT 50(4), 484-
498.
643
Follansbee, E 1988. The story of the flood in the light of comparative Semitic mythology, in
Dundes (ed) 1988:75-87.
Frankel, R 1992. Galilee: prehellenistic, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 879-895.
Frayne, D 2001. In Abraham's footsteps, in Daviau et al (eds) 2001a: 216-236.
Frazer, J G [1918] 1923. Folk-lore in the Old Testament: studies in comparative religion,
legend and law. Abridged ed. London: Macmillan.
Freedman, D N 1960. The name of the God of Moses. JBL 79, 151-156.
— 1980. Epigraphic evidence from Ebla: a summary. BA 43(4), 200-203.
Freedman, D N (ed) 1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday.
Freedman, D N & O'Connor, M P 1986. hwhy YHWH, in Botterweck et al (eds) 1974-2001
vol 5, 500-521.
Freedman, D N & Welch, A 1994. Amos's earthquake and Israelite prophecy, in Coogan et al
(eds) 1994:188-198.
Frerichs, E S & Lesko, L H (eds) 1997. Exodus: the Egyptian evidence. Winona Lake: Ei-
senbrauns.
Fretheim, T E 1991. Exodus. Louisville: John Knox. (Interpretation: A Bible commentary
for teaching and preaching.)
Fretz, M J 1992. Hadoram, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 16-17.
Fretz, M J & Panitz, R I 1992. Caleb, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 808-810.
Frick, F S 1962. Rechabites, in Crim (ed) 1962:726-728.
— 1971. The Rechabites reconsidered. JBL 90, 279-287.
— 1992. Rechab, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 630-632.
— 1999. Response: reconstructing ancient Israel's social world, in Simkins & Cook (eds)
1999:233-254.
Friedman, R E 1987. Who wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books.
— 1995. The Deuteronomistic School, in Beck et al (eds)1995:70-80.
Fritz, V 1987. Conquest or settlement: the Early Iron Age in Palestine. BA 50(2), 84-100.
— 1994. An introduction to biblical archaeology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
(JSOTS 172.)
Fry, V R L 1992. Cain, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 806-807.
Frymer-Kensky, T 1987. Adad, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 1, 26-27.
— 1988. The Atrahasis epic and its significance for our understanding of Genesis 1-9, in
Dundes (ed) 1988: 61-73.
Fulco, W J 1987a. Astarte, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 1, 471.
— 1987b. Athirat, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 1, 491-492.
— 1987c. Baal, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 2, 31-32.
— 1987d. El, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 5, 73-74.
— 1992. Ashima, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 487.
644
Galil, G 2001. The Jerahmeelites and the Negeb of Judah. JANES 28, 33-42.
Garbini, G 1988. History and ideology in ancient Israel. Tr by J Bowden. New York: Cross-
road.
— 1994. Hebrew literature in the Persian Period, in Eskenazi & Richards (eds) 1994:180-
188.
Gaster, T H 1969. Myth, legend and custom in the Old Testament: a comparative study with
chapters from Sir James G Frazer's Folklore in the Old Testament [1918], vol 1. New York:
Harper & Row.
Gelinas, M M 1995. United monarchy – divided monarchy: fact or fiction, in Holloway and
Handy (eds) 1995:227-237.
Gericke, J W 2003. Injustice under the sun: a new perspective on possible allusions to An-
cient Near Eastern solar mythology in Qohelet. OTE 16(2), 244-258.
Gerstenberger, E S 2002. Theologies in the Old Testament. Tr by J Bowden. London: T & T
Clark.
Gianotti, C R 1985. The meaning of the divine name YHWH. BS 142, 38-51.
Gibson, S 2001. Agricultural terraces and settlement expansion in the highlands of Early Iron
Age Palestine: is there any correlation between the two, in Mazar (ed) 2001:113-146.
Ginzberg, L 1909. The legends of the Jews, vol 1. Tr by H Szold. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America.
Gitin, S 1990. Cultic inscriptions found in Ekron. BA 53(4), 232.
Gitin, S, Mazar, A & Stern, E (eds) 1998. Mediterranean peoples in transition: thirteenth to
early tenth centuries BCE. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Glatt-Gilad, D A 2002. Yahweh's honor at stake: a divine conundrum. JSOT 98, 63-74.
Glock, A E 1983. The use of ethnography in an archaeological research design, in Huffmon
et al (eds) 1983:171-179.
— 1992. Taanach, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 287-290.
Glueck, N 1940. Kenites and Kenizzites. PEQ Jan, 22-24.
Gnuse, R 1985. The authority of the Bible: theories of inspiration, revelation and the canon
of Scripture. New York: Paulist.
— 1990. Contemporary evolutionary theory as a new heuristic model for the socio-scientific
method in biblical studies. Zygon 25(4), 405-431.
— 1991a. Israelite settlement of Canaan: a peaceful internal process – part 1. BTB 21(2), 56-
66.
— 1991b. Israelite settlement of Canaan: a peaceful internal process – part 2. BTB 21(3),
109-117.
— 1994. New directions in biblical theology: the impact of contemporary scholarship in the
Hebrew Bible. JAAR 62(3), 893-918.
— 1999. The emergence of monotheism in ancient Israel: a survey of recent scholarship. Re-
ligion 29, 315-336.
— 2007. Breakthrough or tyranny: monotheism's contested implications. Horizons 34(1),
78-95.
Gnuse, R K 1987. Holy history in the Hebrew scriptures and the ancient world: beyond the
present debate. BTB 17(4), 127-136.
645
Gnuse, R K 1997. No other gods: emergent monotheism in Israel. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press. (JSOTS 241.)
— 2000. Redefining the Elohist. JBL 119 (2), 201-220.
Goitein, S D 1956. YHWH the passionate: the monotheistic meaning and origin of the name
YHWH. VT 6, 1-9.
Gold, V R 1962. Irnahash, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 725.
Gordon, C H 1962. Teraphim, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 574.
Gordon, R L 1999. Helios, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:394-401.
Gordon, R P & De Moor, J C (eds) 2005. The Old Testament in its world. Leiden: Brill.
(OTS 52.)
Goren, Y, Finkelstein, I & Na’aman, N 2002. Petrographic investigation of the Amarna tab-
lets. NEA 65(3), 196-205.
Gottwald, N K 1979. The tribes of Yahweh: a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel
1250-1050 B.C.E. London: SCM Press.
— 1993. Recent studies of the social world of premonarchic Israel. CR:BS 1, 163-189.
— 2002. Response to the contributors, in Boer (ed) 2002:172-185.
Govier, G 2004. The shroud's second image: new evidence reopens debate about the contro-
versial relic. Christianity Today 48(12), 56-57.
Grabbe, L L 2006. Biblical historiography in the Persian Period: or how the Jews took over
the empire, in Holloway (ed) 2006:400-414.
Graesser, C F 1972. Standing stones in ancient Palestine. BA 35(3), 34-63.
Graf, D F 1992. Nabateans, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 970-973.
Graves, R 1996. Introduction, in Guirand (ed) 1996:v-viii.
Gray, J 1962a. Chemosh, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 556.
— 1962b. Molech, Moloch, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 422-423.
Grayson, A K 1992a. Esarhaddon, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 574.
— 1992b. Mesopotamia, history of: history and culture of Assyria, in Freedman (ed) 1992
vol 4, 732-755.
Green, A R W 1983. Social stratification and cultural continuity at Alalakh, in Huffmon et al
(eds) 1983:181-203.
Greenberg, G 2000. 101 Myths of the Bible: how ancient scribes invented biblical history.
Naperville: Sourcebooks.
Greenfield, J C 1962. Philistines, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 791-795.
— 1999. Hadad, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:377-382.
Gross, R M 1979. Female God language in a Jewish context, in Christ & Plaskow (eds)
1979:167-173.
Guillet, J [1967] 1973. God, in Léon-Dufour, X (ed), Dictionary of biblical theology, 205-
212. 2nd ed rev and enlarged. Tr by J R Crowley. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Guirand, F (ed) [1959] 1996. The Larousse encyclopedia of mythology. Rev ed. Tr by R Al-
drington & D Ames. London: Chancellor.
646
Gwaltney, W C 1994. Assyrians, in Hoerth et al (eds) 1994:77-106.
Haag, H, Sölle, D, Kirchberger, J H & Schnieper-Müller, A 1994. Eve and Lilith, in Bührer,
E (ed), Great women of the Bible in art and literature, 10-31. Tr by J H Kirchberger. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Habel, N C 1988. The two flood stories in Genesis, in Dundes (ed) 1988:13-28.
Hackett, J 1987. Religious traditions in Israelite Transjordan, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:125-
136.
Hadley, J M 1995. Wisdom and the goddess, in Day et al (eds) 1995:234-243.
— 1997. Chasing shadows: the quest for the historical goddess, in Emerton (ed) 1997:169-
184.
— 2000. The cult of Asherah in ancient Israel and Judah: evidence for a Hebrew goddess.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications
57.)
Hämmerly-Dupuy, D 1988. Some observations on the Assyro-Babylonian and Sumerian
flood stories, in Dundes (ed) 1988:49-59.
Haldar, A 1962. Habiru, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 506.
Hallo, W W & Younger, K L Jr (eds) 2002. The Context of Scripture. Vol 3. Archival doc-
uments from the biblical world. Leiden: Brill.
Halpern, B 1988. The first historians: the Hebrew Bible and history. San Francisco: Harper
& Row.
— 1992. Kenites, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 17-22.
— 1994. The stela from Dan: epigraphic and historical considerations. BASOR 296, 63-80.
— 1997. Text and artifact: two monologues, in Silberman & Small (eds) 1997:311-341.
— 2001. The taking of nothing: 2 Kings 14.25, Amos 6.14 and the geography of the Deuter-
onomistic History, in Daviau et al (eds) 2001a:186-204.
Handy, L K 1992. Serpent, bronze, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 1117.
— 1994. Among the host of heaven: the Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureaucracy. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
— 1995. Historical probability and the narrative of Josiah's reform in 2 Kings, in Holloway
& Handy (eds) 1995:252-275.
— 2006. Josiah in a new light: Assyriology touches the reforming king, in Holloway (ed)
2006:415-435.
Hanks, P (ed) 1992. Collins English dictionary and thesaurus. London: Diamond Books.
Hanson, P D 1987. Israelite religion in the early post-exilic period, in Miller et al (eds)
1987:485-508.
— 1992. 1 Chronicles 15-16 and the Chronicler's views on the Levites, in Talmon, S (ed),
Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East presented to Shemaryahu Talmon,
69-77. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Haran, M 1978. Temples and temple-service in ancient Israel: an inquiry into the character
of cult phenomena and the historical setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Oxford Universi-
ty Press.
Harrelson, W 1977. Life, faith, and the emergence of tradition, in Knight (ed) 1977:11-30.
647
Hasel, M G 2003. Merenptah's inscription and reliefs and the origin of Israel. AASOR 58, 19-
44.
Hauptmann, A, Begemann, F & Schmitt-Strecker, S 1999. Copper objects from Arad: their
composition and provenance. BASOR 314, 1-17.
Hayes, J H 1977. The history of the study of Israelite and Judaean history, in Hayes & Miller
(eds) 1977:1-69.
Hayes, J H & Miller, J M (eds) 1977. Israelite and Judaean history. London: SCM.
Hayward, C T R 1979. The holy name of the God of Moses and the prologue of St John's
gospel. NTS 25, 16-32.
Heerma van Voss, M 1999. Hathor, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:385-386.
Heimpel, W 2000. Observations on the royal letters from Mari. Orientalia 69(4), 88-104.
Heiser, M S 2001. The mythological provenance of Isa. xiv 12-15: a reconsideration of the
Ugaritic material. VT 51(3), 354-369.
Hendel, R S 1997. Aniconism and anthropomorphism in ancient Israel, in Van der Toorn (ed)
1997:205-228.
— 1999. Serpent, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:744-747.
Henry, D O & Turnbull, P F 1985. Archaeological and faunal evidence from Natufian and
Timnian sites in southern Jordan. BASOR 257, 45-64.
Henton Davies, G 1962a. Mezuzah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 368.
— 1962b. Phylacteries, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 808-809.
— 1962c. Worship in the OT, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 879-883.
Herion, G A 1995. Why God rejected Cain's offering: the obvious answer, in Beck et al (eds)
1995:52-65.
Herrmann, W 1999a. Baal, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:132-139.
— 1999b. El, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:274-280.
— 1999c. Rider upon the clouds, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:703-705.
Herzog, Z 1994. The Beer-Sheba valley: from nomadism to monarchy, in Finkelstein &
Na’aman (eds) 1994:122-149.
— 2001. The date of the temple at Arad: reassessment of the stratigraphy and the implica-
tions for the history of religion in Judah, in Mazar (ed) 2001:156-178.
Herzog, Z, Aharoni, M & Rainey, A F 1987. Arad: an ancient Israelite fortress with a temple
to Yahweh. BARev 13(2), 16-35.
Herzog, Z, Aharoni, M, Rainey, A F & Moshkovitz, S 1984. The Israelite fortress at Arad.
BASOR 254, 1-34.
Hess, R S 1991. The divine name Yahweh in Late Bronze Age sources. UF 23, 181-188.
— 1994. Alalakh studies and the Bible: obstacle or contribution, in Coogan et al (eds)
1994:199-215.
Hestrin, R 1987. The cult stand from Ta‛anach and its religious background, in Lipińsky, E
(ed), Studia Phoenicia. V. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the first millennium B.C.
Proceedings of the Conference held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th November 1985, 61-
77. Leuven: Peeters. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22.)
648
Hestrin, R 1991. Understanding Asherah: exploring Semitic iconography. BARev 17(5), 50-
59.
Hiebert, T 1992. Warrior, divine, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 876-880.
Hillers, D R 1973. The bow of Aqhat: the meaning of a mythological theme, in Hoffner (ed)
1973:71-80.
Hoerth, A J, Mattingly, G L & Yamauchi, E M (eds) 1994. Peoples of the Old Testament
world. Cambridge: Lutterworth.
Hoffman, Y 1994. The concept of 'other gods' in the deuteronomistic literature, in Reventlow
et al (eds) 1994:66-84.
Hoffmeier, J K 1994. Egyptians, in Hoerth et al (eds) 1994:251-290.
Hoffner, H A Jr (ed) 1973. Orient and occident: essays presented to Cyrus H Gordon on the
occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Holladay, C R 1992. Hecataeus, pseudo-, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 108-109.
Holladay, J S Jr 2001. Toward a new paradigmatic understanding of long-distance trade in
the Ancient Near East: from the Middle Bronze II to Early Iron II – a sketch, in Daviau et al
(eds) 2001b:136-198.
Holladay, W L (ed) 1971. A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament.
Based upon the lexical work of L Koehler and W Baumgartner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Holloway, S W 1995. Harran: cultic geography in the Neo-Assyrian empire and its implica-
tions for Sennacherib's 'Letter to Hezekiah' in 2 Kings, in Holloway & Handy (eds) 1995:276-
314.
Holloway, S W (ed) 2006. Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible. Sheffield: Phoenix. (He-
brew Bible Monographs 10.)
Holloway, S W & Handy, L K (eds) 1995. The pitcher is broken: memorial essays for Gösta
W Ahlström. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 190.)
Hoppe, L J 1985. Jerusalem in the deuteronomistic history, in Lohfink (ed) 1985:107-110.
Horowitz, A 1988. Palynology, in Drinkard et al (eds) 1988:261-278.
Horsley, R A 2005. The politics of cultural production in Second Temple Judea: historical
context and political-religious relations of the scribes who produced 1 Enoch, Sirach, and
Daniel, in Wills, L M & Wright, B G (eds), Conflicted boundaries in wisdom and apocalyp-
ticism, 123-145. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. (SBL 35.)
Hoskisson, P Y 1996. The scission and ascendancy of a goddess: Dīrītum at Mari, in Coleson
& Matthews (eds) 1996:261-266.
Hossfeld, F-L & Zenger, E 2003. The so-called Elohistic psalter: a new solution for an old
problem, in Strawn & Bowen (eds) 2003:35-51.
Houtman, C 1993. Exodus, vol 1. Tr by J Rebel & S Woudstra. Kampen: Kok. (Historical
Commentary on the Old Testament.)
— 1999. Moses, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:593-598.
Huehnergard, J 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (HSM.)
— 1992. Languages: introductory survey, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 155-170.
Huffmon, H B 1985. Cain, the arrogant sufferer, in Kort & Morschauser (eds) 1985:109-113.
— 1999a. Name, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:610-612.
649
Huffmon, H B 1999b. Shalem, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:755-757.
Huffmon, H B, Spina, F A & Green, A R W (eds) 1983. The quest for the kingdom of God:
studies in honor of George E MendenhalI. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Human, D 1999. Aspects of monotheism: a continued debate. OTE 12(3), 491-505.
Hunt, M 1992. Jezreel, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 850.
Hurvitz, A 1997. The historical quest for "Ancient Israel" and the linguistic evidence of the
Hebrew Bible: some methodological observations. VT 47(3), 301-315.
Hutter, M 1999a. Heaven, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:388-390.
— 1999b. Shaushka, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:758-759.
Hyatt, J P [1971] 1980. Exodus. Rev ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. (NCBC.)
Isaacson, B 1979. Dictionary of the Jewish religion. Ed by D Gross. New York: Bantam.
Jacobsen, T 1981. The Eridu Genesis. JBL 100, 513-529.
— 1987. The graven image, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:15-32.
Jagersma, H [1982] 1994. A history of Israel to Bar Kochba. Part 1. The Old Testament pe-
riod. Part 2. From Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba. One vol ed. Tr by J Bowden. Lon-
don: SCM.
Jamieson-Drake, D W 1991. Scribes and schools in monarchic Judah: a socio-archaeo-
logical approach. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 109.) (The Social World of
Biblical Antiquity Series 9, ed by J W Flanagan.)
Janzen, J G 1979. What's in a name: "Yahweh" in Exodus 3 and the wider biblical context.
Interpretation 33(3), 227-239.
— 1994. The "wandering Aramean" reconsidered. VT 44(3), 359-375.
Jason, H 1995. Biblical literature and epic folk tradition: some folkloristic thoughts. OTE 8,
280-290.
Jay, R 1996. Mythology. London: Hodder Headline Plc.
Johnson, M D [1969] 1988. The purpose of the biblical genealogies: with special reference
to the setting of the genealogies of Jesus. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series.)
Johnson, R F 1962. Caleb, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 482-483.
Johnson, S S 1992. Cush, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 1219.
Kallai, Z 1978. Judah and Israel: a study in Israelite historiography. IEJ 28, 251-261.
— 1997. The twelve-tribe systems of Israel. VT 47(1), 53-89.
Kaltner, J & Stulman, L (eds) 2004. Inspired speech: prophecy in the ancient Near East. Es-
says in honor of Herbert B Huffmon. London: T & T Clark.
Kapelrud, A S 1962a. Gebal, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 359-360.
— 1962b. Phoenicia, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 800-805.
— 1962c. Ugarit, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 724-732.
— 1977. Tradition and worship: the role of the cult in tradition formation and transmission,
in Knight (ed) 1977:101-124.
650
Keel, O 1978. The symbolism of the biblical world: ancient Near Eastern iconography and
the book of Psalms. Tr by T J Hallett. London: SPCK.
— 1998. Goddesses and trees, new moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern art and the He-
brew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 261.)
Kelly-Buccellati, M 1990. Trade in metals in the third millennium: northeastern Syria and
eastern Anatolia, in Matthiae et al (eds) 1990:117-128.
Kennett, R H 1905. The origin of the Aaronite priesthood. JThS 6, 161-186.
Kenyon, K [1978] 1987. The Bible and recent archaeology. Rev ed by P R S Moorey. At-
lanta: John Knox.
Kikawada, I M 1972. Two notes on Eve. JBL 91, 33-37. (SBL.)
Killebrew, A E 2005. Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians,
Canaanites, Philistines, and early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E. Leiden: Brill. (SBL 9.)
Kitchen, K A & Mitchell, T C 1982. Chronology of the Old Testament, in Douglas (ed)
1982:188-198.
Kittel, R 1905. Rechabiter, in Herzog, J J (Red), Realencyklopädie für protestantische
Theologie und Kirche, 16. Band, 480-482. Dritte verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage,
herausgegeben von D A Hanck. Leipzig: J C Hinrichs.
Klein, J 1992. Sacred marriage, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 866-870.
Kleinig, J W 1994. Recent research in Chronicles. CR:BS 2, 43-76.
Kletter, R 2001. Between archaeology and theology: the pillar figurines from Judah and the
Asherah, in Mazar (ed) 2001:179-215.
Knauf, E A 1992a. Keturah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 31.
— 1992b. Reuel, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 693-694.
— 1999a. Qôs, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:674-677.
— 1999b. Shadday, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:749-753.
Knight, D A (ed) 1977. Tradition and theology in the Old Testament. London: SPCK.
Knight, G A F 1981. Theology in pictures: a commentary on Genesis chapters one to eleven.
Edinburgh: The Handsel.
Knights, C H 1992. The Rechabites of Jeremiah 35: forerunners of the Essenes? JSP 10, 81-
87.
— 1993. "The story of Zosimus" or "The history of the Rechabites". Journal for the Study of
Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman period 24(2), 235-245.
— 1995. Towards a critical introduction to "The history of the Rechabites". Journal for the
Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman period 26(3), 324-342.
— 1997a. A century of research into the story/apocalypse of Zosimus and/or The History of
the Rechabites. JSP 15, 53-66.
— 1997b. The History of the Rechabites: an initial commentary. Journal for the Study of Ju-
daism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman period 28(4), 413-436.
Knoppers, G N 2003. The city Yhwh has chosen: the Chronicler's promotion of Jerusalem in
light of recent archaeology, in Vaughn, A G & Killebrew, A E (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and
archaeology: the First Temple Period, 307-326. Leiden: Brill. (SBL 18. Symposium Se-
ries.)
651
Knudsen, E E 1999. Amorite names and Old Testament onomastics. SJOT 13(2), 202-224.
Kobayashi, Y 1992. Jabez (place), in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 595.
Kohn, R L 2003. Ezekiel at the turn of the century. CBR 2(1), 9-31.
Korpel, M C A 2001. Asherah outside Israel, in Becking et al 2001:127-150.
— 2005. Disillusion among Jews in the post-exilic period, in Gordon & De Moor (eds)
2005:135-157.
Kort, A & Morschauser, S (eds) 1985. Biblical and related studies presented to Samuel Iwry.
Kraeling, E G 1962. Elephantine papyri, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 83-85.
Kramer, S N 1962. Nippur, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 553-554.
Kruger, H A J 2001a. Myth, ideology, and wisdom: a brief survey. OTE 14(1), 47-75.
— 2001b. Genesis 3 part II: myth as vehicle for a polemic against religion, ideology and
wisdom. OTE 14(2), 214-234.
Kuenen, A 1882a. The religion of Israel to the fall of the Jewish State, vol 1. Tr by A H
May. London: Williams & Norgate.
— 1882b. The religion of Israel to the fall of the Jewish State, vol 2. Tr by A H May. Lon-
don: Williams & Norgate.
Kuhrt, A 1995. The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC, vol 2. London: Routledge.
(Routledge History of the Ancient World.)
Kunin, S D 1995. The logic of incest: a structuralist analysis of Hebrew mythology. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 185.)
Kuntz, J K 1992. Kenaz, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 17.
LaBianca, Ø S & Younker, R W 1998. The kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom: the ar-
chaeology of society in Late Bronze/Iron Age Transjordan (ca. 1400-500 BCE), in Levy (ed)
1998:399-415.
Lambdin, T O 1962. Tell el-Amarna, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 529-533.
Landes, G M 1962a. Amalek, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 101-102.
— 1962b. Ammon, Ammonites, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 108-114.
— 1962c. Kenites, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 6-7.
Landman, I 1939. Serpent, in Landman, I (ed), The universal Jewish encyclopedia, vol 9,
484. New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.
Lang, B 1983. Monotheism and the prophetic minority: an essay in biblical history and soci-
ology. Sheffield: Almond. (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series.)
— 1999. Wisdom, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:900-905.
— 2002. The Hebrew God: portrait of an ancient deity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lapp, N 1994. Who is this that comes from Edom, in Coogan et al (eds) 1994:216-229.
Lapp, P W 1969. The 1968 excavations at Tell Ta‛annek. BASOR 195, 2-49.
Lasine, S 1994. Levite violence, fratricide, and sacrifice in the Bible and later revolutionary
rhetoric, in Wallace, M I & Smith, T H (eds), Curing violence, 204-229. Sonoma: Polebridge.
652
Launderville, D F 1992. Hobab, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 234-235.
Layton, S C 1997. Remarks on the Canaanite origin of Eve. CBQ 59(1), 22-32.
Lehmann, G 2001. Phoenicians in western Galilee: first results of an archaeological survey in
the hinterland of Akko, in Mazar (ed) 2001:65-112.
Lelli, F 1999. Stars, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:809-815.
Lemaire, A 2004. Hebrew and West Semitic inscriptions and pre-exilic Israel, in Day (ed)
2004:366-385.
Lemche, N P 1988. Ancient Israel: a new history of Israelite society. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
— 1992. Habiru, Hapiru, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 6-10.
— 1994. Is it still possible to write a history of ancient Israel? SJOT 8(2), 165-190.
— 1996. Early Israel revisited. CR:BS 4, 9-34.
Lemche, N P & Thompson, T L 1994. Did Biran kill David: the Bible in the light of archae-
ology. JSOT 64, 3-22.
Le Roux, J H 1994. In search of Carroll's Jeremiah, or: good old Jerry, did he really live?
Question irrelevant. OTE 7(1), 60-90.
Le Roux, M 1994. Identiteit 'n vlietende entiteit: die politieke invloed op die Israelitiese
stamme gedurende die tyd van die Rigters. R & T 1(3), 308-328.
Levenson, J D 1976. On the promise to the Rechabites. CBQ 38(4), 508-514.
Levin, Y 2001. Understanding biblical genealogies. CR:BS 9, 11-46.
— 2002. Nimrod the mighty, king of Kish, king of Sumer and Akkad. VT 52(3), 350-366.
Levinson, B M 2004. Is the Covenant Code an exilic composition: a response to John van
Seters, in Day (ed) 2004:272-325.
Levy, T E (ed) [1995] 1998. The archaeology of society in the Holy Land. 2nd ed. London:
Leicester University Press.
Lewy, H 1962. Mari, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 264-266.
Lewy, I 1956. The beginnings of the worship of Yahweh: conflicting biblical views. VT 6(4),
429-435.
L'Heureux, C E 1979. Rank among the Canaanite gods: El, Ba‛al, and the Repha’im. Mon-
tana: Scholars Press. (HSM 21.)
Lindenberger, J M 2001. What ever happened to Vidranga: a Jewish liturgy of cursing from
Elephantine, in Daviau et al (eds) 2001c:134-157.
Lipińsky, E 1972. The goddess Atirat in ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit: her rela-
tion to the moon-god and the sun-goddess. OLP 3, 101-119.
— 1999. Shemesh, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:764-768.
Little, W, Fowler, H W & Coulson, J [1933] 1968. The shorter Oxford English dictionary,
vol 2. 3rd rev ed with addenda. Ed and rev by C T Onions. Oxford: Clarendon.
Livingstone, A 1999. Assur, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:108-109.
Liwak, R 1992. Kinah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 39-40.
Lo, H C 1992. Jabez (person), in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 595.
653
Loewen, J A 1984. The names of God in the Old Testament. The Bible Translator 35(2),
201-207.
Lohfink, N (ed) 1985. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, herausge-
geben von Deuteronomy: origin, form and message. Leuven: Peeters. (Bibliotheca Ephem-
eridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 68.)
Lohfink, N F 1999. Was there a deuteronomistic movement, in Shearing & McKenzie (eds)
1999:36-66.
Lokel, P 2006. Moses and his Cushite wife: reading Numbers 12:1 with undergraduate stu-
dents of Makarere University. OTE 19(2), 538-547.
Long, J C Jr & Sneed, M 2004. 'Yahweh has given these three kings into the hand of Moab':
a socio-literary reading of 2 Kings 3, in Kaltner & Stulman (eds) 2004:253-275.
Long, V P 2002. How reliable are biblical reports: repeating Lester Grabbe's comparative ex-
periment. VT 52(3), 367-384.
Longstaff, T R W & Hussey, T C 1997. Palynology and cultural process: an exercise in the
new archaeology, in Edwards & McCollough (eds) 1997:151-162.
Lundbom, J R 1992. Jerahmeel, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 684.
Lundquist, J M 1983. What is a temple: a preliminary typology, in Huffmon et al (eds)
1983:205-219.
Lutzky, H 1998. Shadday as goddess epithet. VT 48(1), 15-36.
Lyman, R 1990. Eusebius of Caesarea, in Ferguson (ed) 1990:325-327.
McCarter, P K Jr 1987. Aspects of the religion of the Israelite monarchy: biblical and epi-
graphic data, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:137-155.
— 1992. The origins of Israelite religion, in Shanks et al 1992:118-141.
McCullough, W S 1962. Caravan, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 536.
MacDonald, B 1992. Edom, archaeology of, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 295-301.
— 1994. Early Edom: the relation between the literary and archaeological evidence, in
Coogan et al (eds) 1994:230-246.
MacDonald, N 2005. Whose monotheism? Which rationality: reflections on Israelite mono-
theism in Erhard Gerstenberger's Theologies in the Old Testament, in Gordon & De Moor
(eds) 2005:158-167.
Machinist, P 2000. Biblical traditions: the Philistines and Israelite history, in Oren (ed)
2000:53-83.
McHugh, M P 1990. Jerome, in Ferguson (ed) 1990:484-486.
McKenzie, J L 1966. Dictionary of the Bible. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
McKenzie, S L 1984. The Chronicler's use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars
Press. (HSM 33.)
— 1999. Postscript: the laws of physics and pan-deuteronomism, in Schearing & McKenzie
(eds) 1999:262-271.
MacLaurin, E C B 1962. YHWH: the origin of the Tetragrammaton. VT 12, 439-463.
MacLean, H B 1962a. Ahaziah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 66-67.
– 1962b. Zedekiah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 947-949.
654
McNutt, P M 1993. Kenites, in Metzger & Coogan (eds) 1993:407.
— 1994. The Kenites, the Midianites, and the Rechabites as marginal mediators in ancient
Israelite tradition. Semeia 67, 109-132.
— 1999. In the shadow of Cain, in Simkins & Cook (eds) 1999:45-64.
— 2002. 'Fathers of the empty spaces' and 'strangers forever': social marginality and the con-
struction of space, in Gunn, D M & McNutt, P M (eds), 'Imagining' biblical worlds: studies in
spatial, social and historical constructs in honor of James W Flanagan, 30-50. London:
Magonet, J 1995. The names of God in biblical narratives, in Davies et al (eds) 1995:80-96.
Maier, W A III 1992a. Anath, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 225-227.
— 1992b. Hadad, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 11.
— 1992c. Hadadrimmon, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 13.
Malamat, A 1962. Mari and the Bible: some patterns of tribal organization and institutions.
JAOS 82(2), 143-150.
— 1979. Ummatum in Old Babylonian texts and its Ugaritic and biblical counterparts. UF
11, 527-536.
— 1982. How inferior Israelite forces conquered fortified Canaanite cities. BARev 8(2), 24-
35.
— 1997. The exodus: Egyptian analogies, in Frerichs & Lesko (eds) 1997:15-26.
Manor, D W 1992. Kadesh-barnea, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 1-3.
Margalit, B 1990. The meaning and significance of Asherah. VT 40(3), 264-297.
Margalith, O 1990. On the origin and antiquity of the name Israel. ZAW 102, 225-237.
—1994. A new type of Asherah-figurine? VT 44(1), 109-115.
Margueron, J-C 1992. Ur, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 766-767. Tr by S Rosoff.
Matthiae, P 1980. Ebla: an empire rediscovered. Tr by C Holme. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
— 1990. A class of Old Syrian bronze statuettes and the sanctuary B2 at Ebla, in Matthiae et
al (eds) 1990:345-355.
Matthiae, P, Van Loon, M & Weiss, H (eds) 1990. Resurrecting the past: a joint tribute to
Adnan Bounni. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. (Uitgaven van het Ne-
derlands Historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.)
Mattingly, G L 1992. Amalek, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 169-171.
Mauch, T M 1962a. Shimeathites, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 331.
— 1962b. Zechariah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 941-943.
Mayes, A D H 1992. Amphictyony, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 212-216.
— 1997. Kuntillet ‛Ajrud and the history of Israelite religion, in Bartlett (ed) 1997:51-66.
Mayes, J L 1969. Hosea: a commentary. London: SCM. (OTL.)
Mazar, A 1982. The "Bull Site": an Iron Age I open cult place. BASOR 247, 27-42.
— 2000. The temples and cult of the Philistines, in Oren (ed) 2000:213-223.
655
Mazar, A 2006. Jerusalem in the 10th century B.C.E.: the glass half full, in Amit, Y, Ben Zvi,
E, Finkelstein, I & Lipschits, O (eds), Essays on ancient Israel in its Near Eastern context: a
tribute to Nadav Na’aman, 255-272. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Mazar, A (ed) 2001. Studies in the archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 331.)
Mendelsohn, I 1962. Urim and Thummim, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 739-740.
Mendenhall, G E 1973. The tenth generation: the origins of the biblical tradition. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
— 1987. The nature and purpose of the Abraham narratives, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:337-
356.
— 1992a. Amorites, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 199-202.
— 1992b. Midian, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 815-818.
— 2004. The Amorite heritage in the West, in Kaltner & Stulman (eds) 2004:12-16.
Merrill, A L & Overholt, T W (eds) 1977. Scripture in history and theology: essays in honor
of J Coert Rylaarsdam. Pittsburgh: Pickwick.
Meshel, Z 1992. Kuntillet ‛Ajrud, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 103-109.
Mettinger, T N D 1997. The roots of aniconism: an Israelite phenomenon in comparative per-
spective, in Emerton (ed) 1997:219-233.
— 1999a. Seraphim, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:742-744.
— 1999b. Yahweh Zebaoth, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:920-924.
Metzger, B M & Coogan, M D (eds) 1993. The Oxford companion to the Bible. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Meyers, C 1988. Discovering Eve: ancient Israelite women in context. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Mihelic, J L 1962. Kedesh, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 4-5.
Milano, L 1995. Ebla: a third-millennium city-state in ancient Syria, in Sasson, J M, Baines,
J, Beckman, G & Rubinson, K (eds), Civilizations of the ancient Near East, vol 2, 1219-1230.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Milgrom, J 1971. Nazirite, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 12, 907-909.
— 1983. Magic, monotheism and the sin of Moses, in Huffmon et al (eds) 1983:251-265.
Millard, A R 1982. Hamath, in Douglas (ed) 1982:450-451.
— 1992. Arameans, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 345-350.
Miller, J M 1974. The descendents of Cain: notes on Genesis 4. ZAW 86, 164-174.
— 1977. The Israelite occupation of Canaan, in Hayes & Miller (eds) 1977:213-284.
— 1988. Antecedents to modern archaeology, in Drinkard et al (eds) 1988:3-14.
Miller, P D 1973. The divine warrior in early Israel. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
— 1986. The absence of the goddess in Israelite religion. HAR 10, 239-248.
— 2000a. Israelite religion and biblical theology: collected essays. Sheffield: Sheffield Ac-
ademic Press. (JSOTS 267.)
656
Miller, P D 2000b. The religion of ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. (Li-
brary of Ancient Israel.)
Miller, P D, Hanson, P D & McBride, S D (eds) 1987. Ancient Israelite religion: essays in
honor of Frank Moore Cross. USA: Fortress.
Miller, R D 2006. Yahweh and his Clio: critical theory and the historical criticism of the He-
brew Bible. CBR 4(2), 149-168.
Mondi, R 1990. Greek mythic thought in the light of the Near East, in Edmunds, L (ed), Ap-
proaches to Greek myth, 142-197. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Mondriaan, M E 2002. Jahwe en die herkoms van Jahwisme: 'n kritiese evaluering van teor-
ieë oor die herkoms van Jahwisme. Ongepubliseede MA mini-verhandeling, Universiteit van
Pretoria.
— 2005. Lilith and Eve: wives of Adam. OTE 18(3), 752-762.
Montcrieff, A R H 1994. Classical mythology. London: Studio Editions.
Montefiore, C G & Loewe, H 1938. A rabbinic anthology. Selected and arranged with com-
ments and introductions. London: Macmillan.
Moore, C A 1992. Jeremiah, additions to, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 698-706.
Moore, M S 2003. Jehu's coronation and purge of Israel. VT 53(1), 97-114.
Morton, W H 1962a. Ge-harashim, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 361.
— 1962b. Shephelah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 324-325.
Mowinckel, S 1961. The name of the God of Moses. HUCA 32, 121-133.
Moye, R H 1990. In the beginning: myth and history in Genesis and Exodus. JBL 109(4),
577-598.
Müller, H-P 2001. trtX[ ‛aštārōt, in Botterweck et al (eds) 1974-2001 vol 11, 423-434.
Muhly, J D 1998. Copper, tin, silver and iron: the search for metallic ores as an incentive for
foreign expansion, in Gitin et al (eds) 1998:314-329.
Muilenburg, J 1969. Prolegomenon, in Robertson Smith 1969:1-27.
Mulder, M J 1977. Baal in the OT, in Botterweck et al (eds) 1974-2001 vol 2, 192-200. Rev
ed.
Mullen, E T Jr 1980. The assembly of the gods: the divine council in Canaanite and early
Hebrew literature. Harvard: Scholars Press. (HSM 24.)
Na’aman, N 2002. The abandonment of cult places in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah as
acts of cult reform. UF 34, 585-602.
Nakhai, B A 2003. Israel on the horizon: the Iron I settlement of the Galilee. AASOR 58,
131-151.
Naudé, J P 1986. Die skeppingsmites as simbole van psigiese prosesse. HTS 42(4), 753-763.
Naveh, J 1963. Old Hebrew inscriptions in a burial cave. IEJ 13(1), 74-92.
— 1987. Proto-Canaanite, archaic Greek, and the script of the Aramaic text on the Tell
Fakhariyah statue, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:101-113.
Negev, A & Gibson, S (eds) [1972] 2001. Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land.
Rev updat ed. London: Continuum.
657
Nelson, R D 1981. The double redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield: JSOT
Press. (JSOTS 18.)
— 2003. Divine warrior theology in Deuteronomy, in Strawn & Bowen (eds) 2003:241-259.
Neusner, J 1985. Genesis and Judaism: the perspective of Genesis Rabbah. An analytical
anthology. Tr and ed by J Neusner. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (Brown Judaic Studies 108.)
Newman, M L 1985. Rahab and the conquest, in Butler, J T, Conrad, E W & Ollenburger,
B C (eds), Understanding the Word: essays in honor of Bernard W Anderson, 167-181.
Sheffield: JSOT Press. (JSOTS 37.)
Nickelsburg, G W E 1992. Enoch, first book of, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 508-516.
Niditch, S 1996. Oral world and written word: ancient Israelite literature. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox. (Library of Ancient Israel.)
Niehaus, J 1994. In the wind of the storm: another look at Genesis III 8. VT 44(2), 263-266.
Niehr, H 1999a. God of heaven, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:370-372.
— 1999b. He-of-the-Sinai, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:387-388.
— 1999c. Host of Heaven, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:428-430.
— 1999d. Religio-historical aspects of the 'early post-exilic' period, in Becking & Korpel
(eds) 1999:228-244.
Nikolsky, R 2002. The History of the Rechabites and the Jeremiah literature. JSP 13(2), 185-
207.
Nissinen, M 2004. What is prophecy: an Ancient Near Eastern perspective, in Kaltner &
Stulman (eds) 2004:17-37.
Nolan, G 1982. The role of the Kenites in Israel's history. DTh dissertation, New Orleans
Baptist Theological Seminary.
North, R 1989. Yahweh's Asherah, in Horgan, M P & Kobelski, P J (eds), To touch the text:
biblical and related studies in honor of Joseph A Fitzmyer S J, 118-137. New York: Cross-
road.
Novak, D 1992. Buber and Tillich. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 29(2), 159-174.
Nysse, R W 1992. Heber, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 94-95.
Obermann, J 1949. The divine name YHWH in the light of recent discoveries. JBL 68, 301-
323.
O'Brien, M A 1995. The book of Deuteronomy. CR:BS 3, 95-128.
Oden, R A Jr 1992. Myth and mythology, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 946-960.
Ofer, A 1994. All the hill country of Judah: from a settlement fringe to a prosperous monar-
chy, in Finkelstein & Na’aman (eds) 1994:92-121.
— 2001. The Monarchic Period in the Judaean highland: a spatial overview, in Mazar (ed)
2001:14-37.
Oliphant, M 1992. The atlas of the ancient world: charting the great civilizations of the past.
London: Marshall.
Ollenburger, B C 1987. Zion the city of the great King: a theological symbol of the Jerusalem
cult. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 41.)
Olyan, S M 1988. Asherah and the cult of Yahweh in Israel. Georgia: Scholars Press.
(SBL.MS 34.)
658
Oppenheim, A L 1962a. Hammurabi, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 517-519.
— 1962b. Shalmaneser, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 305.
— 1962c. Tiglath-Pileser (III), in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 641-642.
Oren, E D 2000. Introduction, in Oren (ed) 2000:xvii-xx.
Oren, E D (ed) 2000. The Sea Peoples and their world: a reassessment. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Museum Publications.
Ornan, T 2001a. Ištar as depicted on finds from Israel, in Mazar (ed) 2001:235-256.
— 2001b. The bull and its two masters: moon and storm deities in relation to the bull in An-
cient Near Eastern art. IEJ 51(1), 1-26.
Otzen, B 1984. Heavenly visions in early Judaism: origin and function, in Barrick & Spencer
(eds) 1984:199-215.
Oxford University Press [1962] 1964a. The Reader's Digest great encyclopaedic dictionary,
vol 1. 2nd ed. London: Reader's Digest.
— [1962] 1964b. The Reader's Digest great encyclopaedic dictionary, vol 2. 2nd ed. Lon-
don: Reader's Digest.
— [1962] 1964c. The Reader's Digest great encyclopaedic dictionary, vol 3. 2nd ed. Lon-
don: Reader's Digest.
— 1987. The concise reference encyclopedia and dictionary. Kensington: Bay Books.
Pagels, E H 1979. What became of God the mother: conflicting images of God in Early
Christianity, in Christ & Plaskow (eds) 1979:107-119.
Panitz, R I 1992. Jephunneh, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 682-683.
Pardee, D 1999. Eloah, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:285-288.
— 2001. Ugaritic science, in Daviau et al (eds) 2001c:223-254.
Parker, S B 2000. Did the authors of the Books of Kings make use of royal inscriptions? VT
50(3), 357-378.
Patai, R 1992. Robert Graves and the Hebrew myths: a collaboration. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press.
Paul, S M & Dever, W G (eds) 1973. Biblical archaeology. Jerusalem: Keter. (Library of
Jewish Knowledge.)
Peckham, B 1995. Writing and editing, in Beck et al (eds) 1995:364-383.
— 2001. Phoenicians and Aramaeans: the literary and epigraphic evidence, in Daviau et al
(eds) 2001b:19-44.
Person, R F Jr 2002. The Deuteronomic School: history, social setting, and literature. Ed by
D T Olson. Leiden: Brill. (SBL 2.)
Pettinato, G 1976. The royal archives of Tell-Mardikh-Ebla. BA 39, 44-52.
— 1980. Ebla and the Bible. BA 43(4), 203-216.
Phillips, A & Phillips, L 1998. The origin of 'I am' in Exodus 3.14. JSOT 78, 81-84.
Pike, D M 1992. Names, theophoric, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 1018-1019.
Pinnock, F 2000. The doves of the goddess: elements of the cult of Ishtar at Ebla in the Mid-
dle Bronze Age. Levant 32, 121-128.
659
Pitard, W T 1992a. Toi, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 595.
— 1992b. Zobah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 1108.
— 1994. Arameans, in Hoerth et al (eds) 1994:207-230.
— 1996. An historical overview of pastoral nomadism in the central Euphrates Valley, in
Coleson & Matthews (eds) 1996:293-308.
Polk, T 1979. The Levites in the Davidic-Solomonic Empire. Studia Biblica et Theologica 9,
3-22.
Pope, M H 1962. Rechab, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 14-16.
Porten, B 1996. The Elephantine papyri in English: three millennia of cross-cultural continu-
ity and change. Leiden: Brill.
Porton, G G 1992. Haggadah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 19-20.
Portugali, J 1994. Theoretical speculations on the transition from nomadism to monarchy, in
Finkelstein & Na’aman (eds) 1994:203-217.
Prag, K 2001. Figurines, figures and contexts in Jerusalem and regions to the east in the sev-
enth and sixth centuries BCE, in Mazar (ed) 2001:217-234.
Prinsloo, G T M 2001. Yahweh the warrior: an intertextual reading of Habakkuk 3. OTE
14(3), 475-493.
Propp, W H C 1996. The priestly source recovered intact? VT 46 (4), 458-478.
Provan, I, Long, V P & Longman III, T 2003. A biblical history of Israel. Louisville: West-
minster John Knox.
Rainey, A F 1985. On "the Israelite fortress at Arad": short notes. BASOR 258, 73-74.
— 1991. Can you name the panel with the Israelites: Rainey's challenge. BARev 17(6), 56-
60, 93.
— 1994. Hezekiah's reform and the altars at Beer-sheba and Arad, in Coogan et al (eds)
1994:333-354.
— 2001. Israel in Merenptah's inscription and reliefs. IEJ 51, 57-75.
Rajak, T 1992. Hasmonean Dynasty, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 67-76.
Ramsey, G W 1981. The quest for the historical Israel. Atlanta: John Knox.
Rappoport, A S & Patai, R 1966. Myth and legend of ancient Israel, vol 1. New York: Ktav.
Rast, W E 1977. Cakes for the queen of heaven, in Merrill & Overholt (eds) 1977:167-180.
— 1994. Priestly families and the cultic structure at Tanaach, in Coogan et al (eds) 1994:355-
365.
Rech, J A 2004. New uses for old laboratory techniques: how radiocarbon dating of mortar
and plaster could change the chronology of the Ancient Near East. NEA 67(4), 212-219.
Redford, D B & Weinstein, J M 1992. Hyksos, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 341-348.
Reed, S A 1992. Kadmonites, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 4.
Rehm, M D 1992. Levites and priests, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 297-310.
Reimer, D J 2004. Jeremiah before the Exile, in Day (ed) 2004:207-224.
Rendtorff, R 1997. Directions in pentateuchal studies. CR:BS 5, 43-65.
660
Revell, E J 2001. Midian and Ishmael in Genesis 37: synonyms in the Joseph story, in Daviau
et al (eds) 2001a:70-91.
Reventlow, H G, Hoffman, Y & Uffenheimer, B (eds) 1994. Politics and theopolitics in the
Bible and postbiblical literature. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 171.)
Ribichini, S 1999. Melqart, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:563-565.
Richard, S 1987. The early Bronze Age: the rise and collapse of urbanism. BA 50(1), 22-43.
Ringgren, H 1977. The impact of the Ancient Near East on Israelite tradition, in Knight (ed)
1977:31-46.
— 1986. hwhy YHWH, in Botterweck et al (eds) 1974-2001 vol 5, 500-521.
Roberts, J J M 1987. Yahweh's foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16). JBL 106(1), 27-45.
Robertson Smith, W [1927] 1969. Lectures on the religions of the Semites: the fundamental
institutions. 3rd ed with introduction and additional notes by SA Cook. USA: Ktav. (The Li-
brary of Biblical Studies.)
Robinson, R B 1978. The Levites in the pre-monarchic period. Studia biblica et theologica
8, 3-24.
Röllig, W 1999. Bethel, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:173-175.
Römer, T C 1999. How did Jeremiah become a convert to deuteronomistic ideology, in
Schearing & McKenzie (eds) 1999:189-199.
Rofé, A 1993. Abraham Kuenen's contribution to the study of the Pentateuch: a view from
Israel, in Dirksen & Van der Kooij (eds) 1993:105-112.
— 1999. Introduction to the composition of the Pentateuch. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press. (The Biblical Seminar 58.)
— 2001. The organization of the judiciary in Deuteronomy (Deut. 16.18-20; 17.8-13; 19.15;
21.22-23; 24.16; 25.1-3), in Daviau et al (eds) 2001a:92-112.
Rose, H J [1970] 1972. Mythographers, in Hammond, N G L & Scullard, H H (eds), The Ox-
ford classical dictionary, 717-718. 2nd ed with corrections. London: Oxford University
Press.
Rose, M 1992. Names of God in the OT, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 1001-1011.
Rosenberg, S G 2004. The Jewish temple at Elephantine. NEA 67(1), 4-13.
Rothkoff, A 1971. Nazirite: in Talmud, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 12, 909-910.
Rouillard, H 1999. Rephaim, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:692-700.
Roussin, L A 1997. The zodiac in synagogue decoration, in Edwards & McCullough (eds)
1997:83-96.
Rowley, H H 1950. From Joseph to Joshua: biblical traditions in the light of archaeology.
London: Oxford University Press.
— 1963. From Moses to Qumran: studies in the Old Testament. London: Lutterworth.
— 1967. Worship in ancient Israel: its forms and meaning. London: SPCK.
Rudman, D 2004. The patriarchal narratives in the books of Samuel. VT 54(2), 239-249.
Saggs, H W F 1978. The encounter with the divine in Mesopotamia and Israel. London: Ath-
lone Press University of London. (School of Oriental and African Studies University of Lon-
don.)
661
Saggs, H W F 1984. The might that was Assyria. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.
Sakenfeld, K D 1993. Eve, in Metzger & Coogan (eds) 1993:206-207.
Saldarini, A J 1992. Scribes, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 1012-1016.
Sarna, N M 1971. Jochebed, in Berman & Carlebach (eds) 1971 vol 10, 130.
Sasson, J M 1962. Mari, in Crim (ed) 1962:567-571.
— 1984. The biographic mode in Hebrew historiography, in Barrick & Spencer (eds)
1984:305-312.
— 1992. Gilgamesh epic, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 1024-1027.
— 2006. Mari and the Holy Grail, in Holloway (ed) 2006:186-198.
Schart, A 1995. Combining prophetic oracles in Mari letters and Jeremiah 36. JANES 23, 75-
93.
Schearing, L S & McKenzie, S L (eds) 1999. Those elusive Deuteronomists: the phenomenon
of pan-deuteronomism. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 268.)
Scheffler, E 1996. The interface between historical geography and the holistic history of an-
cient Israel. OTE 9(2), 294-307.
— 2000. Fascinating discoveries from the biblical world. Pretoria: Biblia.
Schloen, J D 1993. Caravans, Kenites, and Casus belli: enmity and alliance in the Song of
Deborah. CBQ 55, 18-38.
— 2002. W F Albright and the origins of Israel. NEA 65(1), 56-62.
Schmidt, B B 1999. Moon, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:585-593.
Schmitz, P C 1992. Queen of Heaven, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 5, 586-588.
Schnell, R F 1962. Rephaim, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 35.
Schunk, K-D 1992. Benjamin, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 671-673. Tr by P R Callaway.
Seale, M S 1974. The desert Bible: nomadic tribal culture and Old Testament interpretation.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Seely, D R 1992. Arabah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 321-324.
Segal, A F 1981. Hellenistic magic: some questions of definition, in Van den Broek, R &
Vermaseren, M J (eds), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic religions: presented to Gilles
Quispel on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 349-375. Leiden: Brill.
Seitz, C 1999. The call of Moses and the revelation of the divine name: source-critical logic
and its legacy, in Seitz, C & Greene-McCreight, K (eds), Theological exegesis: essays in hon-
or of Brevard S Childs, 145-161. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Sellers, O R 1962a. Ephah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 107.
— 1962b. Homer, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 639.
Sever, T L 1988. Remote sensing, in Drinkard et al (eds) 1988:279-305.
Shanks, H 1992. Defining the problems: where we are in the debate, in Shanks et al 1992:1-
25.
Shanks, H, Dever, W G, Halpern, B & McCarter, P K 1992. The rise of ancient Israel. Sym-
posium at the Smithsonian Institution October 26, 1991. Washington: Biblical Archaeology
Society.
662
Shavit, Y 1997. Archaeology, political culture, and culture in Israel, in Silberman & Small
(eds) 1997:48-61.
Silberman, N A & Small, D B 1997. Introduction, in Silberman & Small (eds) 1997:17-31.
Silberman, N A & Small, D (eds) 1997. The archaeology of Israel: constructing the past, in-
terpreting the present. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 237.)
Silver, D J 1974. A history of Judaism: from Abraham to Maimonides, vol 1. USA: Basic
Books.
Simkins, R A & Cook S L (eds) 1999. The social world of the Hebrew Bible: twenty-four
years of the social sciences in the Academy. Atlanta: SBL. (Semeia 87.)
Singer, I 2000. New evidence on the end of the Hittite Empire, in Oren (ed) 2000:21-33.
Sjöberg, A W 1984. Eve and the chameleon, in Barrick & Spencer (eds) 1984:217-225.
Skinner, J [1910] 1930. A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis. 2nd ed. Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark. (The International Critical Commentary.)
Slayton, J C 1992. Jethro, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 821.
Small, D B 1997. Group identification and ethnicity in the construction of the early state of
Israel: from the outside looking in, in Silberman & Small (eds) 1997:271-288.
Smart, J D 1962. Hosea, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 648-653.
Smelik, K A D 1992. Converting the past: studies in ancient Israelite and Moabite historiog-
raphy. Leiden: Brill. (OTS 28.)
Smend, R 1977. Tradition and history: a complex relation, in Knight (ed) 1977:49-68.
Smith, F G 1968. Observations on the use of the names and titles of God in Genesis. The
Evangelical Quarterly 40, 103-109.
Smith, M S 1990. The early history of God: Yahweh and the other deities in ancient Israel.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
— 1997. The pilgrimage pattern in Exodus. Contributions by E M Bloch-Smith. Sheffield:
— 2001. The origins of biblical monotheism: Israel's polytheistic background and the Uga-
ritic texts. Oxford: University Press.
— 2002. Ugaritic studies and Israelite religion: a retrospective view. NEA 65(1), 17-29.
— 2004. The memoirs of God: history, memory, and the experience of the Divine in Ancient
Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Snyman, S D 2003. Non-violent prophet and violent God in the book of Habakkuk. OTE
16(2), 422-434.
Soggin, J A 1981. Heber der Qenit: das Ende eines biblischen Personennamens? VT 31(1),
89-92.
Speiser, E A 1962. Hurrians, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 664-666.
— 1964. Genesis: introduction, translation, and notes. New York: Doubleday. (The Anchor
Bible.)
Spence, L [1921] 1994. Introduction to mythology. London: Studio Editions.
Sperling, H & Simon, M 1931. The Zohar, vol 1. Tr by H Sperling & M Simon. London:
Soncino.
663
Sperling, H & Simon, M 1932. The Zohar, vol 2. Tr by H Sperling & M Simon. London:
Soncino.
Sperling, S D 1987. God, in Eliade (ed) 1987 vol 6, 1-8.
— 1992. Blood, avenger of, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 763-764.
Spronk, K 1999a. Dedan, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:232-233.
— 1999b. Rahab, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:684-686.
Stacey, W D 1982. A pre-battle rite in ancient Israel, in Livingstone E A (ed), Studia Evan-
gelica, vol 7. Papers presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at
Oxford, 1973, 471-473. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Stallman, R C 1992. Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls. JSP 10, 163-189.
Steiner, M 1998. The archaeology in ancient Jerusalem. CR:BS 6, 143-168.
— 2001. Jerusalem in the tenth and seventh centuries BCE: from administrative town to
commercial city, in Mazar (ed) 2001:280-288.
Stek, J H 2002. Rahab of Canaan and Israel: the meaning of Joshua 2. Calvin Theological
Journal 37(1), 28-48.
Stern, E 1999. Religion in Palestine in the Assyrian and Persian periods, in Becking & Kor-
pel (eds) 1999:245-255.
Stern, P 1993. Ephod, in Metzger & Coogan (eds) 1993:189.
Stern, P D 1994. The "Bloodbath of Anat" and Psalm XXIII. VT 44(1), 120-125.
Stiebing, W H Jr 1983. The Amarna Period, in Freedman, D N & Graf, D F (eds), Palestine
in transition: the emergence of ancient Israel, 1-14. Sheffield: Almond Press.
Stinespring, WF 1962. Temple, Jerusalem, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 534-560.
Stol, M 1999. Sîn, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:782-783.
Stone, M 1979. When God was a woman, in Christ & Plaskow (eds) 1979:120-130.
Storm, R 2001. Illustrated encyclopedia: Eastern mythology. New York: Anness.
Strawn, B A & Bowen, N R (eds) 2003. A God so near: essays on Old Testament theology in
honor of Patrick D Miller. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Swauger, J L 1992. Dolmen, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 220-221.
Sweek, J 1995. The monuments, the Babel-Bibel Streit and responses to historical criticism,
in Holloway & Handy (eds) 1995:401-419.
Szikszai, S 1962. Queen, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 974-975.
Talmon, S 1987. The emergence of Jewish sectarianism in the early Second Temple Period,
in Miller et al (eds) 1987:587-616.
Taylor, J B 1982. Horn, in Douglas (ed) 1982:491.
Taylor, J G 1988. The two earliest known representations of Yahweh, in Eslinger & Taylor
(eds) 1988:557-566.
— 1994. Was Yahweh worshiped as the sun. BARev 20(3), 52-61, 90-91.
Te Velde, H 1999. Bes, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:173.
Thiel, W 1992a. Ahaziah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 107-109. Tr by P R Callaway.
664
Thiel, W 1992b. Athaliah, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 511-512.
— 1992c. Jehu, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 670-673. Tr by C Muenchow.
Thierry, G J 1948. The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. OTS 5, 30-42.
Thompson, H O 1992. Yahweh, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 1011-1012.
Thompson, J A 1982. Moabite Stone, in Douglas (ed) 1982:787-789.
Thompson, T L 1977. The Joseph and Moses narratives: historical reconstructions of the nar-
ratives, in Hayes & Miller (eds) 1977:149-166.
— 1999. The mythic past: biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel. London: Basic
Books.
Tidwell, N L 1996. Mesha's hmslt b’rnn: what and where? VT 46(4), 490-497.
Tigay, J H 1986. You shall have no other gods: Israelite religion in the light of Hebrew in-
scriptions. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (HSS.)
— 1987. Israelite religion: the onomastic and epigraphic evidence, in Miller et al (eds)
1987:157-194.
Trever, J C 1962. Papyrus, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 3, 649.
Tropper, J 1999. Spirit of the dead, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:806-809.
Tubb, J N 2000. Sea Peoples in the Jordan Valley, in Oren (ed) 2000:181-196.
Uehlinger, C 1999. Riding horseman, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:705-707.
Uffenheimer, B 1987. The religious experience of the psalmists and the prophetic mind. Tr
by B Uval. Immanuel 21, 7-27.
Uitti, R W 1992. Jerahmeel, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 3, 683-684.
Ussishkin, D 1987. Lachish: key to the Israelite conquest of Canaan? BARev 13(1), 18-39.
— 1988. The date of the Judaean shrine at Arad. IEJ 38, 142-157.
Van Beek, G W 1962a. Archaeology, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 1, 195-207.
— 1962b. Zaanannim, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 4, 926.
Van der Kooij, A 1993. The "Critical Method" of Abraham Kuenen and the methods of Old
Testament research since 1891 up to 1991, in Dirksen & Van der Kooij (eds) 1993:49-64.
Van der Toorn, K 1992. Anat-Yahu, some other deities, and the Jews of Elephantine. Numen
39, 80-101.
— 1993. Saul and the rise of Israelite state religion. VT 43(4), 519-542.
— 1994. From her cradle to her grave: the role of religion in the life of the Israelite and the
Babylonian woman. Tr by SJ Denning-Bolle. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
— 1995. Ritual resistance and self-assertion: the Rechabites in early Israelite religion, in
Platvoet, J & Van der Toorn, K (eds), Pluralism and identity: studies in ritual behaviour, 229-
259. Leiden: Brill.
— 1998. Currents in the study of Israelite religion. CR:BS 6, 9-30.
— 1999a. Amurru, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:32-34.
— 1999b. God (1), in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:352-365.
665
Van der Toorn, K 1999c. Rakib-El, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:686-687.
— 1999d. Shimige, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:773-774.
— 1999e. Yahweh, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:910-919.
— 2004. From the mouth of the prophet: the literary fixation of Jeremiah's prophecies in the
context of the Ancient Near East, in Kaltner & Stulman (eds) 2004:191-202.
Van der Toorn, K (ed) 1997. The image and the Book: iconic cults, aniconism, and the rise of
book religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Peeters.
Van der Toorn, K, Becking, B & Van der Horst, P W (eds) [1995] 1999. Dictionary of deities
and demons in the Bible. 2nd rev ed. Leiden: Brill.
Van der Woude, A S (ed) 1986. The world of the Bible: Bible handbook, vol 1. Tr by S
Woudstra. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Eerdmans.
Van Dyk, P 2005. Mythical linkage and mythical frameworks. OTE 18(3), 863-878.
Van Dyk, P J 1990. Current trends in Pentateuch criticism. OTE 3(2), 191-202.
Van Loon, M 1990. The naked rain goddess, in Matthiae et al (eds) 1990:363-378.
Van Reeth, A 1994. Ensiklopedie van die mitologie. Vert deur J van Tonder, J Combrink &
D Müller. Vlaeberg: Vlaeberg Uitgewers.
Van Rooy, H V 1994. Prophet and society in the Persian Period according to Chronicles, in
Eskenazi & Richards (eds) 1994: 163-179.
Van Selms, A 1967. Genesis, deel 1. Nijkerk: G F Callenbach.
Van Seters, J 1980. The religion of the patriarchs in Genesis. Bib 61, 220-233.
— 1983. In search of history: historiography in the ancient world and the origins of biblical
history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
— 1994. The life of Moses: the Yahwist as historian in Exodus - Numbers. Louisville: John
Knox.
— 1999. Is there evidence of a Dtr redaction in the Sinai pericope (Exodus 19-24, 32-34), in
Schearing & McKenzie (eds) 1999:160-170.
Varughese, A 2004. The royal family in the Jeremiah tradition, in Kaltner & Stulman (eds)
2004:319-328.
Vehse, C T 1995. Long live the king: historical fact and narrative fiction in 1 Samuel 9-10, in
Holloway & Handy (eds) 1995:435-444.
Vermaak, P S 2001. Asherah, the mother goddess and asherah, the game board. Journal for
Semitics 10(1-2), 43-71.
Vermes, G [1977] 1982. The Dead Sea scrolls: Qumran in perspective. 2nd ed. London:
SCM.
Von Rad, G [1961] 1972. Genesis: a commentary. 3rd rev tr ed. Tr by SCM Press. Nor-
wich: Fletcher & Son.
Vriezen, K J H 2001. Archaeological traces of cult in ancient Israel, in Becking et al
2001:45-80.
Waaler, E 2002. A revised date for pentateuchal texts: evidence from Ketef Hinnom. Tyndale
Bulletin 53(1), 29-55.
Wagner, W H 1990. Clement of Alexandria, in Ferguson (ed) 1990:214-216.
666
Walker, B G 1988. The woman's dictionary of symbols and sacred objects. New York:
HarperCollins.
Walker, N 1958. Yahwism and the divine name "Yhwh". ZAW 70 (3-4), 262-265.
Wallace, H N 1985. The Eden narrative. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (HSM 32.)
— 1992a. Eden, garden of, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 281-283.
— 1992b. Tree of knowledge and tree of life, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 6, 656-660.
Ward, J M 1962a. Jaazaniah, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 777.
— 1962b. Jonadab, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 964.
Ward, W A 1994. Phoenicians, in Hoerth et al (eds) 1994:183-206.
Wehmeier, S (ed) [1948] 2005. Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English. 7th
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, J 1992. The citizen-temple community. Tr by D L Smith-Christopher. Sheffield:
JSOT Press. (JSOTS 151.)
Weinfeld, M 1985. The emergence of the deuteronomic movement: the historical anteced-
ents, in Lohfink (ed) 1985:76-98.
— 1987. The tribal league at Sinai, in Miller et al (eds) 1987:303-314.
— 1988. Historical facts behind the Israelite settlement pattern. VT 38(3), 324-332.
— 1996. Feminine features in the imagery of God in Israel: the sacred marriage and the sa-
cred tree. VT 46(4), 515-529.
Weinstein, J 1997. Exodus and archaeological reality, in Frerichs & Lesko (eds) 1997:87-
103.
Weinstein, J M 1988. Radiocarbon dating, in Drinkard et al (eds) 1988:235-259.
Wenham, G J 1987. Genesis 1-15, vol 1. Texas: Word Books. (Word Biblical Commen-
tary.)
Wessels, J P H 1996. Postmodern rhetoric and the former prophetic literature, in Porter, S E
& Olbricht, T H (eds), Rhetoric, scripture and theology: essays from the 1994 Pretoria Con-
ference, 182-194. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSOTS 131.)
West, J K [1971] 1981. Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
Westerman, C [1974] 1984. Genesis 1-11: a commentary. Tr by J J Scullion from the 2nd
German ed 1976. London: SPCK.
Whiston, W [1737] 1960. The complete works of Josephus. Enlarged ed. Tr by Wm Whis-
ton. Grand Rapids: Kregel.
Widengren, G 1969. Prolegomena, in Bleeker, C J & Widengren, G (eds), Historia Reli-
gionum: handbook for the history of religions, vol 1, 1-22.
Willi, T 1994. Late Persian Judaism and its conception of an integral Israel according to
Chronicles: some observations on form and function of the genealogy of Judah in 1 Chroni-
cles 2.3-4.23, in Eskenazi & Richards (eds) 1994:146-162.
Williams, A J 1977. The relationship of Genesis 3 20 to the serpent. ZAW 89(1), 357-374.
Williams, D S 1992. Netaim, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 4, 1084.
Williams, P J 2005. Are the biblical Rephaim and the Ugaritic RPUM healers, in Gordon &
De Moor (eds) 2005:266-275.
667
Williams, R B 1977. Origen's interpretation of the Old Testament and Lévi-Strauss' interpre-
tation of myth, in Merrill & Overholt (eds) 1977:279-299.
Williams, W G 1935. The Ras Shamra inscriptions and their significance for the history of
Hebrew religion. AJSL 51(4), 233-246.
Willis, R (ed) 1993. World mythology: the illustrated guide. London: Duncan Baird.
Wilson, J A 1962. Egypt, in Buttrick (ed) 1962 vol 2, 39-66.
Wilson, R R 1977. Genealogy and history in the biblical world. New Haven: Yale Universi-
ty Press.
— 1992. Genealogy, genealogies, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 929-932.
— 1999. Who was the Deuteronomist? (Who was not the Deuteronomist?): reflections on
pan-deuteronomism, in Schearing & McKenzie (eds) 1999:67-82.
— 2004. Current issues in the study of Old Testament prophecy, in Kaltner & Stulman (eds)
2004:38-46.
Wiseman, D J 1982a. Ebla, in Douglas (ed) 1982:295.
— 1982b. Hammurapi, in Douglas (ed) 1982:451.
— 1982c. Kish, in Douglas (ed) 1982:665.
— 1982d. Mari, in Douglas (ed) 1982:736-737.
— 1982e. Mesha, in Douglas (ed) 1982:763.
— 1982f. Tyre, Tyrus, in Douglas (ed) 1982:1227-1229.
Wittenberg, G 2007. Resistance theology in the Old Testament: collected essays. Pietermar-
itzburg: Cluster.
Wittenberg, G H 1995. Wisdom influences on Genesis 2-11: a contribution to the debate
about 'Yahwistic' primeval history. OTE 8(3), 439-457.
Woolley, L 1988. Stories of the creation and the flood, in Dundes (ed) 1988:89-99.
Wright, D P 1996. Holiness, sex, and death in the Garden of Eden. Bib 77, 305-329.
Wright, J W 1992. Amram, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 1, 217.
Wyatt, N 1999a. Asherah, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:99-105.
— 1999b. Astarte, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:109-114.
— 1999c. Eve, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:316-317.
— 2005. The mythic mind: essays on cosmology and religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament
literature. London: Equinox.
Xella, P 1999. Resheph, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:700-703.
Yadin, Y 1982. Is the biblical account of the Israelite conquest of Canaan historically relia-
ble. BARev 18(2), 16-23.
Younger, K L Jr 2006. The production of Ancient Near Eastern text anthologies from the ear-
liest to the latest, in Holloway (ed) 2006:199-219.
Younker, R W 2003. The emergence of Ammon: a view of the rise of Iron Age polities from
the other side of the Jordan. AASOR 58, 153-176.
Yurco, F J 1990. 3,200 year old picture of Israelites found in Egypt. BARev 16(5), 20-38.
668
Yurco, F J 1991. Can you name the panel with the Israelites: Yurco's response. BARev 17(6),
61.
Zatelli, I 1999. Constellations, in Van der Toorn et al (eds) 1999:202-204.
Zertal, A 1991. Israel enters Canaan: following the pottery trail. BARev 17(5), 28-49.
— 1992. Ebal, Mount, in Freedman (ed) 1992 vol 2, 255-258.
— 1998. The Iron Age I culture in the hill-country of Canaan: a Manassite perspective, in
Gitin et al (eds) 1998:238-250.
Zevit, Z 1985. The problem of Ai. BARev 11(2), 58-69.
— 2001. The religions of ancient Israel: a synthesis of parallactic approaches. London:
Continuum.
669

The Rise of Yahwism: Role of Marginalised Groups

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Rise of Yahwism: Role of Marginalised Groups

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The rise of Yahwism:

role of marginalised groups

submitted in partial fulfilment

Philosophiae Doctor (Ancient Languages and Cultures)

SUPERVISOR: PROF GTM PRINSLOO

Pretoria October 2010

3 MYTHOLOGY, ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PANTHEONS

4 NAME YHWH AND RELATED FORMS 227

5 THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF YAHWISM 307

6 RECHABITES AND ANALOGOUS MARGINAL GROUPS 406

7 ORIGIN OF THE ISRAELITE NATION: SYNOPTIC SURVEY 477

8 ORIGIN OF THE MASORETIC TEXT AND MONOTHEISM:

9 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION 613

1.1 Motivation for research

1.2 Research problem

1.4 Purpose of research

Motivation for the inclusion of the different chapters is as follows.

Archaeological data are regarded as of paramount importance in my endeavour to research the

According to genealogical lists in the Hebrew Bible – particularly in Chronicles – as well as

According to 1 Chronicles 2:55

In conclusion I stipulate shortcomings in my research, with suggestions for further investiga-

Hebrew Bible books27

On the whole it is evident that archaeology contributes extensively to the comprehension of

2.2 Radiocarbon dating, palynology and remote sensing

2.3 Ebla archives

2.4 Mari documents

A tribe named TUR-meš-ia-mi-na – meaning "sons of the South" – is frequently mentioned

2.5 Amarna Letters and the habiru

2.6 Egyptian records

2.7 Merenptah's inscriptions and reliefs

History is influenced by phenomena such as climatic or geographic conditions, economic and

2.8 Ras Shamra tablets: Ugarit

2.9 Kuntillet ‛Ajrud

Fragments of inscriptions on wall-plaster in Phoenician script were found. There is a signifi-

2.10 Khirbet ’el-Qom

2.11 Khirbet Beit Lei

To characterise ancient Hebrew script, monumental inscriptions or ostraca written in ink by

2.12 Ketef Hinnom

Figure 3. Three sides of the Taanach cult stand excavated in 1902.

Bull figurines and the "Bull Site"

2.14 Cult sites

2.14.2 Tel Arad

2.14.3 Tel Beer-sheba

2.14.4 Tel Dan

2.14.5 Papyri from and a Jewish temple at Elephantine

2.14.6 Solomonic Temple: a comparison

2.15 Résumé and conclusion

More sophisticated archaeological techniques – such as controlled procedures of stratigraphi-

MYTHOLOGY, ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PANTHEONS

A collection of myths is virtually always a component at the centre of a broader religion. As

Ašratum – probably characterised as goddess of the nomads [Amurru/Amorites] – was often

3.2.2 Occurrence in the Masoretic Text and Israelite religion

It is I who is like an always green cyprus,

Vriezen235 mentions that archaeological finds interpreted as remains of a hbcm236 or asherah

3.2.3 Queen mother and the cult of Asherah

3.2.4 Synopsis and conclusion: Asherah and synonymous female deities

Ašratum, characterised as a goddess of nomads – the Amurru/Amorites – was often declared

3.3 Relevant female deities

3.4 Queen of Heaven

A designation of Ishtar – Annunītum – became an independent deity, retaining her former

3.5 Storm gods and warrior gods

According to Obermann,523 the designation "Rider-of-the-Clouds" was applied to Ba‛al long

3.6 Astral deities

Excursus 1: Israelite religion and syncretism